this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2025
792 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
61456 readers
4073 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Unfortunately that's standard for pretty much every service in existence until the government determines otherwise or the users demand it en masse. No company is going to willingly expose themselves to any more risk than they absolutely have to. There's zero benefit to them.
Let's not call disabling the right to sue a "business risk". That's like calling the right to stop paying for the service a "risk" - it's riskdiculous.
...and why not?
But...that's what it is? I promise if they could remove that risk with a few words in the TOS, and it was legal, they'd all be doing that too.
The right to take legal action for harm done is imperative. It's importance is diminished if conflated with a legitimate business risk (like research and development). It should be illegal to deny it.
I agree. But we weren't discussing hypotheticals, we were discussing reality.
By "business risk", they just mean bad for the business, ethics aside
Yes that's what they mean. I tried to persuade against meaning that.
And we should just accept that?
Doesn't matter if you should or not. Point is you accept it or you don't use any service whatsoever.
Looks like there's a viable alternative here.
Really? Who are you going to sue here? And how much money do you think you can sue them for?
Oh no, there's no money or profit motive here. I guess that's terrible.
That's not what I asked.
I don't think forced arbitration has really been tried in court. I remember Disney kind of trying, but it was completely unrelated (e.g. argued that arbitration agreement from Disney+ applied to issues on physical Disney properties).
In order to hold up in court, the contract needs to reasonably benefit both parties instead of only the contract issuer. So there's a very good chance a court will dismiss the forced arbitration clause, especially if it's just in a EULA and not a bidirectional contract negotiation.
That said, I tend to avoid services with binding arbitration statements in their EULA, and if I can't, I avoid companies that force acceptance of EULA changes to continue use of the service.
Well I know someone tried it against Valve and they ended up removing the requirement.