728
submitted 7 months ago by SeaJ@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] lhx@lemmy.world 40 points 6 months ago

Lawyer here: this isn’t necessarily correct and in America it’s state dependent. There are absolutely parts of the law you can waive, including negligence of a party which is likely your bungee jumping scenario with the rope snapping.

[-] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 8 points 6 months ago

Are T&Cs retroactive? I would think any new T&Cs could only apply from that point forward, not that they could retroactively absolve themselves of liability or how you could pursue it.

[-] lhx@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Like all good lawyer answers: maybe. I don’t know enough about the specific amended terms or their data breach. Courts sometimes enforce adhesion contacts and sometimes don’t. But retroactive in and of itself isn’t illegal; for example, if you could edit NOT retroactively settle a dispute, you’d have no settlement agreements.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

But settling a dispute requires compensation for the party that was damaged. That's what a settlement is.

You can't say "If you don't do A, B, and C you can't sue me! Nah nah nah!" Without compensation courts are not going to believe that anyone knowingly agreed to the settlement.

Now if they gave everyone like $5 and said "Sign here where it says you can't sue," that would be different.

[-] lhx@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

You’re referring to the contract concept of “consideration” which sometimes is the same as compensation but can also do doing/ not doing an action. Sometimes consideration isn’t required either, particularly if the original contract had adequate consideration and says future amendments don’t have to have it. (Depends a lot on which state). That may or may not matter here. It really depends on the specific terms at dispute and you can’t just assume it fixes this issue.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 6 points 6 months ago

IANAL and I don't claim to fully understand the case, but it looks to me like the reason they might be able to get away with it is that they're not trying to change anyone's rights or obligations; they are "merely" changing the mechanism by which disputes are to be resolved. It is of course a pure coincidence that the new mechanism makes it a lot harder to find 23andMe liable for any infractions.

[-] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 4 points 6 months ago

I lean the other way.

I think it would be a pretty solid case to argue that the change to the TOS, considering the timing and combined with the breach, would be outrageously unreasonable enough to invalidate the “meeting of the minds” requirement.

[-] there1snospoon@ttrpg.network 4 points 6 months ago

Ain’t America just grand

[-] doublejay1999@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

Well, I yield to your experience and training , !

this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
728 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

55693 readers
2704 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS