Thomas 🔭✨ (@[email protected]) 23andMe just sent out an email trying to trick customers into accepting a TOS change that will prevent you from suing them after they literally lost your genome
Thomas 🔭✨ (@[email protected]) 23andMe just sent out an email trying to trick customers into accepting a TOS change that will prevent you from suing them after they literally lost your genome
Attached: 1 image ⚠️ 23andMe just sent out an email trying to trick customers into accepting a TOS change that will prevent you from suing them after they literally lost your genome ro thieves. Do what it says in the email and email [email protected] that you do not agree with the new ...
23andMe just sent out an email trying to trick customers into accepting a TOS change that will prevent you from suing them after they literally lost your genome ro thieves.
Do what it says in the email and email [email protected] that you do not agree with the new terms of service and opt out of arbitration.
If you have an account with them, do this right now.
Here’s an email template for what to write: https://www.patreon.com/posts/94164861
You're viewing a single thread.
I feel like the TOS you are subject to is the one you signed when you first used the service. Unless you have been constantly using their service, I can't see how a new TOS would affect you. I could be WAAY off here because IANAL, but a company can't just retroactively change the TOS for customers without some kind of action taken by the customers under the new TOS.
I once successfully defended myself from a lawsuit by invoking a previous TOS. The court allowed me to choose any version of the TOS that benefited me the most. It was akin the doctrine in contract law that ambiguity is always found to be detrimental to the drafter of the contract.
🦆 yeah! That's awesome! Kudos to you for prevailing.
Contracts are way less enforceable in courts then the writers would hope. Basically the enforceable parts are payment and performance and anything directly related to that. Once you start adding clauses that are outside of that realm they become more and more of a waste of ink.
I'm not sure if lawyers think their words are magic sometimes, or if they'd just really like them to be magic.
I live in a state that prohibits most non-competes from employers, and any effort to try to get employees to sign overly restrictive agreements can actually result in a fine and penalty. My company sent me a legal agreement saying that by signing the doc and continuing to be employed, I agree to waive my state's protections against non-competes. As if... that would hold up in any court, ever.
It's a blatantly illegal clause and I could have fought it at the time... but in the end I knew it was totally unenforceable at worst. I'll go after them for the penalty if they ever try to enforce it, or if I leave under bad circumstances. It was more valuable to me to have this document than it is for them to have it.
They want us to believe their words are magic for 2 reasons:
-
They make a lot of money and they want that gravy train to keep chugging
-
The average person is scared by lots of big sounding words, and the evidence of that is everywhere.
The average person is scared of massive lawyer fees trying to defend against any law suit.
See reason 1. But yes.
-
You’re right. I just want to add the proper terms for people to search for in case this information helps them. The main matters considered in contract law are “consideration and performance”. Happy hunting y’all. Take down these corporations that do not care for you.
Yes, payment isn't necessary, it's just that consideration is payment 99% of the time for the average Joe, to the point where the first definition of consideration is "payment or money" but there are certainly contracts out there where it isn't money.
You’re right. I only wanted to include the search term for anyone wanting to pursue this on their own. I think it is better to search the proper term and build knowledge from there than to summarize it and hope laymen understand the underlying principles.
the doctrine in contract law that ambiguity is always found to be detrimental to the drafter of the contract.
Anywhere to read more about this?
I wish I could give you a source but I recall this from college almost 20 years ago. If you read into “contract law” you will arrive there pretty quickly. It’s one of the main principles
IANAL too, buddy, IANAL too
I just LOVE that the standard acronym for a lack of legal license sounds like an Isaac Asimov porn parody 😆
Or a new Apple product... iAnal
I'm pretty sure iAnal is what the executives at Apple call the accounting department when they don't get to expense their third pound of beluga kaviar.
Even that's rather iffy too. If it's been made so long that a reasonable person cannot be expected to read or understand it, it likely won't hold up.
Of the courts decide to say, fuck it then it won't hold up.
If this goes to a class action suit, I expect the judge to not let this change of TOS affect who is covered under the class action suit.
This is just a way to make the customer THINK they can't sue.