7 ms·

> without my consent Not having read the TOS of the platform (or even ever having used it), I'll hazard a guess this isn't quite legally true.

• gorjusborg 5y ago
  Not sure if you are intending to, but that only further illustrates how broken (in the favor of corporations) the current legal environment is. You are right in that there probably is a gotcha, you agreed clause in the text that is displayed after I have purchased the item. I also think the idea that is legally binding a farce. Imagine how popular buying things would be if people actually had to read those agreements.
  • salawat 5y ago
    >Imagine how popular buying things would be if people actually had to read those agreements. If you ever wondered why your elders are such sticks in the mud on this sort of thing, that is exactly why. Put a contract in front of most people and off they run for the hills. This is why the click through EULA was the best thing to ever happen to the legal profession.
  • f1refly 5y ago
    It has to be displayed before you buy the item, and it is. If you don't read the contracts you sign you only have yourself to blame. You also wouldn't go to a car dealership, skip the contract, sign it and expect good things to happen.
    • asxd 5y ago
      Oh wow, I hope you can appreciate what a perfect example that is of the adversarial environment consumers find themselves in. "Read the contract because it is likely a bad idea and you shouldn't do it." Granted, in the car dealership scenario you have the opportunity to negotiate. That is not the case here.
    • matheusmoreira 5y ago
      Does it even matter if we read these contracts? No one's going to negotiate terms with the billion dollar company and only lawyers will have a full understanding of the implications of what's written in these things anyway. This last fact alone should be enough to invalidate any consent. I mean, we're actually talking about "buying" games here. That's how insidious these things are. The few people who read this fine print will know that we're not really "buying" anything, we're being offered extremely limited licenses to the content. Can you blame consumers who fall prey to corporate deception? Marketing leads them to believe they're "buying" stuff. It's not really their fault when they become victims of corporate bullshit like remote content deletion. Nobody should have to consult lawyers before consuming. Let's summarize all company contracts in an easy to understand manner: 1. We can do whatever we want. 2. You can do nothing we don't want. 3. We own everything. 4. We guarantee nothing. 5. You have no rights. That does it. That's literally what all these little contracts boil down to. Every single time I read one it's just the above 5 points over and over in mind numbing legal language.
      • emteycz 5y ago
        It matters. You can click decline. If more people read the contracts and clicked decline, perhaps they'd have to change the contract.
        • lodovic 5y ago
          I don't assume that companies track how many people reject their TOS, since they are not users of their product.
          • emteycz 5y ago
            Of course they do track, with their profits (and conversion rates).
        • alpaca128 5y ago
          If more people did things differently in this fashion the world would be a very different place. Too bad this doesn't happen and the users who actually decline make up less than 0.01%, probably below any error margin. People just don't care until they personally get a kick in their face. We all know that and companies bet on it.