Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 770 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why not sue Facebook (Original Post)
ghostsinthemachine
Mar 2018
OP
Anon-C
(3,430 posts)1. Class Action suit - with 50 million as the potential class?
ghostsinthemachine
(3,569 posts)2. Yeah...
And Cambridge Analytical at the same time.
njhoneybadger
(3,910 posts)5. Hell yes
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)3. All users agreed to binding INDIVIDUAL arbitration
of any disputes. Amazon's arbitration clause was upheld by a court some time ago. But perhaps a court would feel this case is just a little bit different...!
Here's something from the American Bar Association in 2015 for a quick browse.
From the Chair: Click Here to Accept the Terms of Service
Online agreements do not always fit neatly within the clickwrap or browse- wrap categories. Sometimes, the agreements display features of both. In Fteja v. Facebook, Inc., the District Court for the Southern District of New York considered the enforceability of the forum selection clause in the hybrid clickwrap- browsewrap agreement between Facebook and its user, requiring that all disputes be litigated in California.41
The Facebook page stated, By clicking Sign Up, you are indicating that you have read and agree to the Terms of Service.42 The court commented that Facebooks terms of use are like a browsewrap in that the terms are only visible via a hyperlink, but also like a clickwrap in that the user must click Sign Up to assent to the hyperlinked terms.43
The court analogized Facebooks terms to a sign next to a bin of apples that says, By picking up this apple, you consent to the terms of sale by this fruit stand. For those terms, turn over the sign.44 Applying that analogy to the instant case, the court saw no reason why the agreement should not be upheld simply because Facebooks terms of use appear on another screen. The court concluded that the Facebook user consented to Facebooks terms of use and also to the forum selection clause therein, and thus granted Facebooks motion to transfer to the Northern District of California.45
Fteja shows that the more an online agreement resembles a traditional clickwrap agreement, the more willing courts are to find the notice necessary to give rise to constructive assent.46 Specifically, a major factor for the Fteja court in holding the agreement enforceable was that Facebook informed the user of the consequences of clicking Sign Up, and showed the user where to click to understand those consequences.
https://www.americanbar.org/publications/communications_lawyer/2015/january/click_here.html
Online agreements do not always fit neatly within the clickwrap or browse- wrap categories. Sometimes, the agreements display features of both. In Fteja v. Facebook, Inc., the District Court for the Southern District of New York considered the enforceability of the forum selection clause in the hybrid clickwrap- browsewrap agreement between Facebook and its user, requiring that all disputes be litigated in California.41
The Facebook page stated, By clicking Sign Up, you are indicating that you have read and agree to the Terms of Service.42 The court commented that Facebooks terms of use are like a browsewrap in that the terms are only visible via a hyperlink, but also like a clickwrap in that the user must click Sign Up to assent to the hyperlinked terms.43
The court analogized Facebooks terms to a sign next to a bin of apples that says, By picking up this apple, you consent to the terms of sale by this fruit stand. For those terms, turn over the sign.44 Applying that analogy to the instant case, the court saw no reason why the agreement should not be upheld simply because Facebooks terms of use appear on another screen. The court concluded that the Facebook user consented to Facebooks terms of use and also to the forum selection clause therein, and thus granted Facebooks motion to transfer to the Northern District of California.45
Fteja shows that the more an online agreement resembles a traditional clickwrap agreement, the more willing courts are to find the notice necessary to give rise to constructive assent.46 Specifically, a major factor for the Fteja court in holding the agreement enforceable was that Facebook informed the user of the consequences of clicking Sign Up, and showed the user where to click to understand those consequences.
https://www.americanbar.org/publications/communications_lawyer/2015/january/click_here.html
TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)4. Better yet regulate the ph*ck out of FB,
Twitter and all other social media platforms...
Blue Owl
(50,349 posts)6. Time for Zuck to "give back"
n/t