> You need to enable JavaScript to play.
I didn't enable JavaScript. Does that mean I win?
replies(2):
I'm not sure if I'm winning and I'm not sure if the game is fun anymore. at least the car and I have been playing a single game of me declining the t&c and please ask me again later for some three years and a few months now. So the replay value is high.
Also sometimes my wife pretends to go for the "accept" button and it makes me all hot and bothered
Sure, Apple is less bad than many others, but that does not mean they are trustworthy.
I created this web application to review the terms and conditions of website and show an LLM surface the ugly parts of the TOS.
tosreview.org/
Shoutout: this was inspired by the amazing humans at tosdr.org
I know it probably won't matter, but it's kind of fun for me.
Somewhere I hope a PM is deliberating the intricacies of automotive teledildonics. I hope.
The only valid agreements require the party seeking the agreement to make efforts in that pursuit. Did a human view the signed agreement afterward? Do they store that signed agreement in such a way as to be able to retrieve it if they need to contest the terms later?
Then no agreement was made.
And as for the CFAA provisions, if they put those resources on the public internet, then the public has the right to interact with them. You can't fence off the sidewalk and claim that someone trespasses when they walk on it.
I'm not a lawyer though, I'm not even that well-informed about everyday law stuff for laymen.
there may be no chance it would hold up in court, but not for the reason you say. it would have be be because "any words on on a modified document "signature" line would be taken as a signature" or "subverting a clickwrap license is theft of services" or whatever.
that "agreed" clickwrap licenses have been found enforceable is a separate fact about a separate issue.
I do not understand how such a requirement would be legally enforceable for public endpoints.
Perhaps a better analogy would be:
If you go out into a public space, you have to accept that by doing so you lose a certain portion of your privacy. You cannot expect that other people will agree to your "terms and conditions" before being allowed to talk to you. They will just talk to you if they so like.
If you're going to be on a jury, don't post things like this on the internet, even if I agree with you.
But if terms and conditions ARE offered to you, and you bypass acceptance somehow, then you're knowingly accessing the system without being authorized.
I really doubt this would be prosecuted except as part of some much larger misbehavior, but it is there.
Thanks for the heads-up. Will not visit site.
Furthermore, on reading the wikipedia page, his conviction was vacated.
> On April 11, 2014, the Third Circuit issued an opinion vacating Auernheimer's conviction, on the basis that the New Jersey venue was improper,[60] since neither Auernheimer, his co-conspirators, nor AT&T's servers were in New Jersey at the time of the data breach.
> While the judges did not address the substantive question on the legality of the site access, they were skeptical of the original conviction, observing that no circumvention of passwords had occurred and that only publicly accessible information was obtained
This statement ensures you won't be on the jury.
Those prompt are not real prompts from browser permission system itself that if you deny will prevent site from accesing any data
those are dummy
http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/civilcodebook066.htm
As long as you had the opportunity to read them, you and the company are bound by them even if it is clear you never read them. Surprising terms and conditions are always voidable. There is a whole large list of voidable stipulations. I prefer Canadian law (this differs by province) where voidable stipulations invalidate the contract to a standard contract on the other hand.
I would assume that if it can't handle understanding two paragraphs, it's worthless to be run on a 30+ page TOS.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250625181250/https://www.terms...
it takes a good 5-10 minutes to boot up
Semi-seriously, though, billions are being poured into the correlation of social media posts with real identities, it could be offered as an automated process for a fee that any lawyer would be happy to pay.
There should be a master book of civil contracts that can be filled out in a "Mad Libs" sort of way, but nothing else is legally enforcable. Every sales contract or employment term is the same with only narrow, permitted variations.
This could streamline the legal system because it turns potentially infinite contract designs into a much more constrained problem space. You'd quickly build enough precedent that even lay people could understand the mechanism.
Trying to add a new term would require revising the master book, which would be a very public and political process that would likely shame the instigator (just why are you so desperate to force arbitration?)
The whole "contracts are a voluntary, negotiated, meeting of the minds" perspective feels quaint and 1700s, from an era before billion-dollar companies, and even before formal law schools. Negotiations are rarely between equal parties on a level footing these days.
The problem as I see it, when people start offering novel services it is hard to have a ready made contract for that. Hence the idea of reasonability and voidability that so many people have forgotten. If the term is clearly unbalanced in favor of the controlling party (ability to terminate the contract at any time without penalty while the contractee faces a penalty for early termination) without some specific consideration for this imbalance. These general reasonability notions need to be enforced more agressively. Instead, too many people think that anything goes once you signed the contract, but at the extreme end of this, slavery is clearly illegal. So there is clearly a line where you cannot agree to unreasonable things, but people forget that.
So I think these reasonability clauses were our attempt to capture novel contracts, but they have lost their teeth in the minds of people and in our legal systems. Then I start to entertain the enumerated contracts approach again...