I got about halfway through before my eyes glazed over. Anecdotally, this sentence struck a chord:
"But in the court’s eyes, this is not enough. The court seems to say that there should be 'something more' drawing the user’s attention to the terms, such as contrasting text or a warning...."
We were recently advised by external counsel that our privacy policy and safe harbor links were not adequately visible (they're just plain text at the bottom of every page), and restyled them accordingly. ymmv.
Takeaway: make sure your users click-to-agree on your terms of use. Referencing them in the fine print somewhere isn't safe.
Professor Goldman often makes this comment:
> "there are two types of online terms: mandatory click-through agreements and everything else, which I’ll call 'things that aren’t contracts.'”
Secondary takeaway - you probably want a mandatory arbitration clause in your terms of service. Discuss it with your lawyer, but arbitration is often far less expensive and less distracting for a startup (compared to litigation).
Despite being insane 80s-post-apocalyptic cheese, Cherry 2000 was quite visionary in this core plot point: when dating requires two lawyers and to negotiate the contractual for your "standard one night arrangement", a lot of people will choose the hassle-free android instead.
From this, we can conclude that teledildontics is probably one of the better long-term investments. :P
We are long past the point where the law deserves to be re-imagined as code, which can then be compiled into human-readable abstracts. To require an exorbitantly expensive priest caste to read and write our fundamental social contracts with one another is deeply undemocratic.
The seeds of this process exist, between Watson and its brethren, and the emerging crypto "smart contracts" space.
5 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 39.3 ms ] thread"But in the court’s eyes, this is not enough. The court seems to say that there should be 'something more' drawing the user’s attention to the terms, such as contrasting text or a warning...."
We were recently advised by external counsel that our privacy policy and safe harbor links were not adequately visible (they're just plain text at the bottom of every page), and restyled them accordingly. ymmv.
Professor Goldman often makes this comment: > "there are two types of online terms: mandatory click-through agreements and everything else, which I’ll call 'things that aren’t contracts.'”
Secondary takeaway - you probably want a mandatory arbitration clause in your terms of service. Discuss it with your lawyer, but arbitration is often far less expensive and less distracting for a startup (compared to litigation).
Imagine if you had to read the terms & service of every supermarket you walked into. Every convenience store.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urS8GmwmeWQ
(mildly NSFW bad 80s puns)
Despite being insane 80s-post-apocalyptic cheese, Cherry 2000 was quite visionary in this core plot point: when dating requires two lawyers and to negotiate the contractual for your "standard one night arrangement", a lot of people will choose the hassle-free android instead.
From this, we can conclude that teledildontics is probably one of the better long-term investments. :P
The seeds of this process exist, between Watson and its brethren, and the emerging crypto "smart contracts" space.