upvote

points

by mysterydip1 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Kiro25 minutes ago|
next
[-]
I don't see how the publisher is relevant here. It would be the developer saying that.
reply
upvoteby bpavuk1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
"deemed". the past tense is doing a lot of work here.
reply
upvoteby cogman101 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
"Here's a device we sold you, but when you first turn it on you need to sign this 30 page contract which says you actually don't own the device, if you are mad at us you have to go to our preferred arbitration, and we reserve the right to turn your device off at any time on a whim because you left a bad review somewhere. Sign it or enjoy your worthless brick which we will not refund. Oh, and now every single manufacturer requires the same thing for this device class. So you can either have a washing machine or hand wash your cloths in your bathtub".

These sorts of EULA should be flat out illegal.

reply
upvoteby mystraline52 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
My opinion is that is a fraudulent rental masquerading as a sale.

And any and all EULAs or similar documents presented after a sale should be completely null and void. But any corporation attempting to that should be fined a signficant portion of their revenue. Past that, dissolution of company.

But no, we live in a shit society that someone who signs up for a demo of Disney+ and then has his wife die due to bad food, and they tried to slap indefinite arbitration on him.

https://lawreview.missouri.edu/infinite-arbitration-how-one-...

This whole country feels like one big fucking company store scam.

reply
upvoteby cogman1042 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Yeah, contract law is simply busted here. If it were sane, these contracts would be deemed null and void. In fact, common contract law does require that both sides be compensated. It doesn't require fair or reasonable compensation and that's the big problem.

But I think there is an argument to be made that the EULA has no compensation. Since payment has already been made for the product, it's completely one sided.

reply
upvoteby eskori10 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
1. Yes.

2. It's not just a country. Sadly this is a worldwide problem, this is the global standard. And it's sickening.

reply
upvoteby _aavaa_48 minutes ago|
prev|
[-]
That’s the exact excuse used by the publisher in the article.
reply