Most Online 'Terms of Service' Are Incomprehensible To Adults, Study Finds (vice.com)

Two law professors analyzed the sign-in terms and conditions of 500 popular US websites, including Google and Facebook, and found that more than 99 percent of them were "unreadable," far exceeding the level most American adults read at, but are still enforced. From a report: According to a new paper published on SSRN (Social Science Research Network), the average readability level of the agreements reviewed by the researchers was comparable to articles in academic journals. "While consumers are legally expected or presumed to read their contracts, businesses are not required to write readable ones. This asymmetry -- and its potential consequences -- puzzled us," wrote co-author Samuel Becher, a law professor at Victoria University of Wellington, in an email to Motherboard.

Comments

Do many know how to read properly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know myself many of the agreement are so filled with legal interpretation that unless your a lawyer or are familiar with some of its terminology. You probably do skip over some of the stuff that's important. I would guess that is not by accident that its worded as such to confuse the average user.

Mission Accomplished.

[Matheus]

Exactly.

And therefore....

[Sebby]

unenforceable.

Re:And therefore....

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds - The reasoning is that a party should not be held to a contract that they were not even aware existed.

Basic Contract Law

[Anonymous Coward]

For any contract to be enforceable, it has to have real and valuable consideration. Basically, I give you X and you give me Y. Lets say you sign a contract that says you give me your car. Not enforceable. Or, you give me your car, I give you a penny. Also not enforceable - not valuable consideration. Or, you give me your car and I give you $500. Now that's enforceable.

What does "enforceable" mean? Anybody can break a contract. Lets say you change your mind and you won't give me your car for $500 after you said you would. I'll never get your car (that's called "specific performance" and is pretty rare) but I can sue you for damages. What are damages?

Lets say I passed up a deal on a similar car for $600 so I could buy yours. Prices went up and now I have to pay $800 to get one. Damages are the difference, $200, and I'd win that in court.

A law professor told me that this is the basis for all contract law. You give me X, I give you Y. If you change your mind, you're liable for whatever extra your breach of contract cost me.

Sooooo.... A website's TOS is bullshit. Unless it's giving you a service valuable enough to bother going to court over. And they can't just pull a number out of their asses.

Re:Basic Contract Law

[eddeye]

A law professor told me that this is the basis for all contract law. You give me X, I give you Y. If you change your mind, you're liable for whatever extra your breach of contract cost me.

Sooooo.... A website's TOS is bullshit.

And this is why you don't take legal advice from slashdot. IAAL.

There is consideration exchanged in website TOS. You get access to the site. They get your data (IP, clicks, browser string, etc). The data has value, even if they don't monetize it. So an exchange is made.

OP's point is about remedies. If you break TOS he says all they can recover is value of what they lost. Not so. One, violating a TOS can potentially carry criminal penalties under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (dumb I know, but it's possible).

Two, the problem isn't being sued for the value of your data. The problem is using the TOS to revoke your access to the site on flimsy pretext at the site owner's whim.

Say the TOS forbids you from saying anything bad about his website. If you break it, he can't stop you from badmouthing his site (recovery limited to value of your data). But he can cut you off from using his site any more. Now imagine that site is Amazon or Google. There's your problem. Imagine a contract that said by entering Walmart you consent to their discriminatory practices. That would never fly.

Biggest legal argument against website TOS is that they are contracts of adhesion. That means no opportunity to negotiate, no choice but to accept or forego the product. Such contracts are generally frowned upon in consumer goods. Yet somehow they survive in software and websites.

Re:What's there to understand?

[Frobnicator]

It isn't unique to web sites.

Go to any medical procedure from a dental filling to major surgery and you'll be required to sign away a host of rights, usually with mandatory binding arbitration and forbid a wide swath of malpractice lawsuits against everybody involved. Go buy an item and look at the legal text often shown on the receipt, or the text on a receipt directing you to the web site for the conditions of sale. Look at the 10+ pages of employment contracts usually needed to get a job, which these days nearly eliminate the ability to sue employers for things like unpaid wages or wrongful termination.

Trying to shop around doesn't help because every business incorporates them.

Go ahead and tell your doctor that you won't sign away the rights until you've negotiated a new agreement that is fair. See how well that works.

What really needs to happen is an overhaul of contract law. Currently every imaginable service has been wrapped inside contract law, and thanks to many court rulings lawyers can remove all legal protections by crafting a contract. Most protections afforded in law can be wiped away with a service contract. Nothing short of a new SCOTUS ruling or major law change could correct the issue, and there is almost no chance of those happening in the foreseeable future.