Those things aren’t legally valid for consumer electronics or software in many countries (possibly most of the World) because they’re considered an attempt at forcing a change in the terms of the sale after the sale.
They would be totally valid if they’re presented to the buyer for confirming acceptance during the purchase BEFORE they pay which, “curiously”, they never are.
IANAL, but EULAs are mostly enforceable in the US as they’re contracts. BUT, not every provision is a slam dunk win for the company. As I understand it, much law is decided on what a “reasonable person” would act, think or find fair at the moment action was taken, such as clicking “I Agree”. Would such a person expect the EULA to provide for spying on their voice and snapshotting their private viewing? Dunno, but I’d love to see a test case move forward.
Someone should sue on behalf of a minor, who cannot agree to a contract, or another third-party in the home who did not agree. Bet there’s case law on this sort of thing in other contexts.
From what I read, the point of Law in the countries were EULAs have already been deemed not enforceable by courts (such as Germany) is that one can’t hold something one has sold to a customer hostage to the customer accepting a NEW contract after the sale (the sale itself is considered an implicit contract with certain rights, such as the right to freely use what was sold) before they can use it, so even if people click “I Accept” on such a thing it’s does not form a legally binding contract.
yes and I believe national courts in the EU are actually obligated by the EU unfair terms directive to look for any provision in these terms that are harmful to the consumers (I think it’s called ex officio review) when any of these terms are challenged in court. I am not sure how much protection this actually gets the consumer in practice though.
Illegal only applies when the law is an enforced deterrence. If the fine is low enough, it’s the price of doing business. If it’s hard to sue or there’s no enforcement, the law may as well not exist.
Unfortunately, with these large companies it’s been both: low fines and long lawsuits, so by the time they pay a fine, they have earned 100x the fine in a month or so
Yep! If this would be a meritorious case, I’d bet lawyers would be salivating over it. There are also plenty of firms working for our collective good, pro bono. Witness Elias Law who is slam dunking voter rights cases, wins in state after state, not sure they’ve lost one.
If these tvs are capturing private conversations for advertising, where’s the consent for that?
It’s all in the EULA no one can opt out of, and no one reads, and they can change at any time.
You can blame companies who make hardware, but the laws on privacy are terrible.
EULA has T&C that the first users agree to when they fast forward with the accept accept accept accept screens
Those things aren’t legally valid for consumer electronics or software in many countries (possibly most of the World) because they’re considered an attempt at forcing a change in the terms of the sale after the sale.
They would be totally valid if they’re presented to the buyer for confirming acceptance during the purchase BEFORE they pay which, “curiously”, they never are.
Still it’s the state of the industry.
IANAL, but EULAs are mostly enforceable in the US as they’re contracts. BUT, not every provision is a slam dunk win for the company. As I understand it, much law is decided on what a “reasonable person” would act, think or find fair at the moment action was taken, such as clicking “I Agree”. Would such a person expect the EULA to provide for spying on their voice and snapshotting their private viewing? Dunno, but I’d love to see a test case move forward.
Someone should sue on behalf of a minor, who cannot agree to a contract, or another third-party in the home who did not agree. Bet there’s case law on this sort of thing in other contexts.
From what I read, the point of Law in the countries were EULAs have already been deemed not enforceable by courts (such as Germany) is that one can’t hold something one has sold to a customer hostage to the customer accepting a NEW contract after the sale (the sale itself is considered an implicit contract with certain rights, such as the right to freely use what was sold) before they can use it, so even if people click “I Accept” on such a thing it’s does not form a legally binding contract.
Doesn’t matter if you technically consent, that shit is still illegal (at least in the EU)
yes and I believe national courts in the EU are actually obligated by the EU unfair terms directive to look for any provision in these terms that are harmful to the consumers (I think it’s called ex officio review) when any of these terms are challenged in court. I am not sure how much protection this actually gets the consumer in practice though.
Legality is pointless when the laws are not enforced.
Then there should be consequences any day now, right?
Illegal only applies when the law is an enforced deterrence. If the fine is low enough, it’s the price of doing business. If it’s hard to sue or there’s no enforcement, the law may as well not exist. Unfortunately, with these large companies it’s been both: low fines and long lawsuits, so by the time they pay a fine, they have earned 100x the fine in a month or so
They don’t need consent, none do us can afford to sue them.
Isn’t that what class action law suits are for?
Or better yet, consumer protection laws?
Yep! If this would be a meritorious case, I’d bet lawyers would be salivating over it. There are also plenty of firms working for our collective good, pro bono. Witness Elias Law who is slam dunking voter rights cases, wins in state after state, not sure they’ve lost one.
That’s why we should all support FULU.
https://rossmanngroup.com/fulu-foundation
The first doesn’t exist in most of the eu and the second need to be enforced or they will be ignored
wrt the former most t&c’s mandate forced arbitration to dodge class actions wrt the latter good luck getting consumer protection under this admin.