These companies should be fined just for having the audacity to make people sign ridiculous end user agreements like this.
It’s like the olden times where illiterate people were asked to sign a contract that waived their rights and possessions while they were being told something else entirely.
That’s just modern day Russia whereby asylum seekers were sent to the Finnish border, not let in, then when turning back round were given documents to sign by Russia which they were told meant they would be allowed to stay, but actually meant they were being shipped off to Ukraine to fight.
Yes that will hold up in court, surely.
Maybe I’ve missed the /s, but yes, they’re binding, as long as they’re not in contradiction with the laws.
They don’t meet the terms necessary for the definition of a legal agreement.
- They do not contain a signature.
- They don’t explicitly identify you as an individual (again they can’t because no signature)
- They are not open to arbitration
- They also don’t bind the company to any legal requirements. A contract is between two, or more people. EULAs just define what you’re not allowed to do. They put no restrictions on the company at all.
They exist to scare people and nothing more they’re worth not as much as the paper they never written on.
Wait… the Chinese Intelligence-collecting app might not be trustworthy?
This should be a glaring warning for anyone. The translation for this statement is only ever "WE ARE DOING OR PLAN TO DO SHADY, LIKELY ILLEGAL THINGS WITH YOUR INFORMATION! #plsdontsuekthx“
So these things keep appearing in contracts but everyone seems to say they’re totally unenforceable so… Why do they keep appearing in contracts?
If it’s not illegal to add, the only risk is bad press coverage, and it might prevent someone from suing in the first place because they don’t know their rights.
In the United States where TikTok is based, contracts can include “severability clauses” that state that in the event any part of the contract is deemed unenforceable, the other parts are still good
Is that true? I can’t find any source for it, except very specific cases where the language and contents of the contract matter.
I’m guessing this might be a pre-emptive response to all the Snapchat lawsuits. Basically, parents are suing Snapchat because their kids talked to drug dealers using it.
