this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2026
999 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
89077 readers
3434 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
EULA has T&C that the first users agree to when they fast forward with the accept accept accept accept screens
Those things aren't legally valid for consumer electronics or software in many countries (possibly most of the World) because they're considered an attempt at forcing a change in the terms of the sale after the sale.
They would be totally valid if they're presented to the buyer for confirming acceptance during the purchase BEFORE they pay which, "curiously", they never are.
Still it's the state of the industry.
IANAL, but EULAs are mostly enforceable in the US as they're contracts. BUT, not every provision is a slam dunk win for the company. As I understand it, much law is decided on what a "reasonable person" would act, think or find fair at the moment action was taken, such as clicking "I Agree". Would such a person expect the EULA to provide for spying on their voice and snapshotting their private viewing? Dunno, but I'd love to see a test case move forward.
Someone should sue on behalf of a minor, who cannot agree to a contract, or another third-party in the home who did not agree. Bet there's case law on this sort of thing in other contexts.
From what I read, the point of Law in the countries were EULAs have already been deemed not enforceable by courts (such as Germany) is that one can't hold something one has sold to a customer hostage to the customer accepting a NEW contract after the sale (the sale itself is considered an implicit contract with certain rights, such as the right to freely use what was sold) before they can use it, so even if people click "I Accept" on such a thing it's does not form a legally binding contract.
Doesn't matter if you technically consent, that shit is still illegal (at least in the EU)
Legality is pointless when the laws are not enforced.
Illegal only applies when the law is an enforced deterrence. If the fine is low enough, it's the price of doing business. If it's hard to sue or there's no enforcement, the law may as well not exist. Unfortunately, with these large companies it's been both: low fines and long lawsuits, so by the time they pay a fine, they have earned 100x the fine in a month or so
yes and I believe national courts in the EU are actually obligated by the EU unfair terms directive to look for any provision in these terms that are harmful to the consumers (I think it's called ex officio review) when any of these terms are challenged in court. I am not sure how much protection this actually gets the consumer in practice though.
Then there should be consequences any day now, right?