[info]teh_kittykat in [info]07refugees

mood: geeky
STOP THE PRESSES! Six Apart may be breaking the law!

In short: Recently, a federal court ruled that companies on the Internet must inform their userbase when they change the contract that the users agreed to. The ruling explicitly says that keeping an up-to-date copy of the contract on the site is not good enough-- companies must actually send out the friggin' e-mail in order to let consumers know.

Not that this probably impacts anyone's bottom line, but if you happen to have a lot of free time/money and saved before/after versions of the LJ TOS.. go to town, man. Six Apart is now open to class-action lawsuits over it according to Uncle Sam.

Yeah, I got nothing else.
Tags:

Posted on Aug. 4th, 2007 at 01:31 am | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Comments


[info]ardath_rekha

Yup, they sure are. And the court that made the ruling is the 9th Circuit Court... which has jurisdiction over California. Where they're based. Oh, they picked a bad time to stoke this fire back up.
Posted on Aug. 4th, 2007 05:39 am (UTC) | | Reply

[info]mistress_mab

Yeah. I don't see any law suits happening. I don't think it would hurt to file complaints with regulatory agencies to try and get perm/paid account refunds based upon this information, but class action? I really don't think so.

Maybe file a consumer complaint with the Office of the Attorney General (California). *shrug*
Posted on Aug. 4th, 2007 05:51 am (UTC) | | Thread | Reply

[info]aristoboule

There's always the FTC! ;D
Posted on Aug. 4th, 2007 06:10 am (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

(Anonymous)

Thank you muchly, sir/ma'am. This is now being circulated around LJ. :D


- Rin
Posted on Aug. 4th, 2007 06:45 am (UTC) | | Reply

[info]thedolphingirl

Let's do it! We don't need money, just an apology and a demand for them to clarify themselves and fix the effing problem.
Posted on Aug. 4th, 2007 06:58 am (UTC) | | Thread | Reply

[info]thedolphingirl

Oh, and there's also the Better Business Bureau... I think it may qualify, I'd have to read it up more. It's been a long time since I had to report a company.
Posted on Aug. 4th, 2007 07:01 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]ex_puck349

i know that some folks contacted the bbb about neopets issues and got some response... of some sort. i wasn't paying attention, but i know that something happened! :D
Posted on Aug. 4th, 2007 10:07 am (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]mistress_mab

The BBB is more or less a club of sorts with no real authority. If LJ is a member of the BBB, they pay to be a member. The BBB can't really shut anything down or legally require a company to do anything. All they can do is put a bad report on their website.

If you actually want to have any chance of an investigation being launched, the Attorney Generals office of Consumer Affairs is probably your best bet.

(I used to work in regulatory compliance for a phone company.)
Posted on Aug. 4th, 2007 03:48 pm (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]thedolphingirl

I dunno. I've reported to the BBB a lot with results. It's a pretty big company to go for with reviews.

Once, I reported someone selling bootlegs of computer programs to the BBB. Instantly got my money back.

I'd report to the FTC but I'm still debating on just how much right I have to do so, because sending in a false report can be bad.
Posted on Aug. 6th, 2007 12:44 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]mistress_mab

It's completely up to you, of course. I just don't think that LJ/6A's legal team will be threatened by complaints filed with a business club that they're not even a member of.

No, the FTC is not the right avenue. You wouldn't get in trouble for filing a complaint, but your complaint would get sent to the appropriate agency.
Posted on Aug. 6th, 2007 01:09 am (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

(Anonymous)

Dunno if this would also be open to complaints to http://www.dca.ca.gov/ (Department of Consumer Affairs)? :O
Posted on Aug. 4th, 2007 08:04 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]mistress_mab

Yes.
Posted on Aug. 6th, 2007 01:11 am (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]catecumen

Gotta love context-sensitive ads. The ad accompanying this: "When it's time to take action, file a small claims suit online. Fast, easy, legalzoom.com." Maybe I should start advertising here ....
Posted on Aug. 4th, 2007 10:33 am (UTC) | | Reply

[info]secondsilk

I did think that they should have written to everyone to tell them.
Otherwise are we supposed to check the ToS everytime we click 'post' or 'comment'?
Posted on Aug. 4th, 2007 11:49 am (UTC) | | Thread | Reply

(Anonymous)

Oh, totally. It's because we're psychically connected to this hive mind that connects everyone to 6A's every thought and actions.


- Rin
Posted on Aug. 4th, 2007 12:27 pm (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]littlegirllover

Circuit 9? Pshaw, Section Eleven will rule forevah.

But, but, but, but - the TOS has not been changed since April of 2006, and since the TOS is the only thing reasonably approaching anything that might be called a "contract," the rest is moot, and unaffected, except for any future actual changes to the language of the TOS.

Besides all that, one section of the TOS has been a part of its language since LJ was started...to quote from their commnication with me in a past life:
"As stated in LiveJournal's Terms of Service (http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos.bml), section XI, 'You agree that LiveJournal, in its sole discretion, may terminate your password, journal, or account, and remove and discard any content within the Service, for any reason.' This clause has been in the Terms of Service since LiveJournal was created." (Emphasis added)"
So yeah.
Posted on Aug. 4th, 2007 11:50 pm (UTC) | | Thread | Reply

[info]thedolphingirl

Re: Circuit 9? Pshaw, Section Eleven will rule forevah.

Saying something like that in TOS doesn't always MEAN anything in court. I really doubt if someone took them to court for suspending their account they could get away with saying, "We just wanted to."

At least, I've never heard of anything like that happening in the modern day.
Posted on Aug. 6th, 2007 12:47 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]littlegirllover

Re: Circuit 9? Pshaw, Section Eleven will rule forevah.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm thinking, though, the reason you've never heard of it happening in the modern day, is that no lawyer would bother, and any pro se plaintiff wouldn't get past the summary judgment phase.

Contract language is contract language (no matter how inane), as long as certain elements are in place. In this case, the parties are LJ and the user, the consideration is there in the form of webpages provided, either in exchange for money or the toleration of advertisements, and the terms are the TOS.

I'm no lawyer, but I am all but postive in this case, they can totally get away with saying "we just wanted to." After all, there is no gray area at all in the clause, "for any reason at all."

Why else do you think they can act as they do?

Doesn't mean I like it, but I did sign the contract.

I think the BBB report, however, so far as exerting any pressure on them, is the best idea, yet - even that, though, I expect, owing to the "contract language," that they will reach some sort of agreement rendering all complaints, once checked to consist of the same thing, void, and therefore permanently expunged from their BBB record.
Posted on Aug. 6th, 2007 01:24 am (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]strictly_mod

Better Business Bureau

http://bad-wolf-bitch.livejournal.com/2597.html#comments

The information for BBB complaints. They are required to respond to each customer to resolve the issue, or get a black mark on their rating.
Posted on Aug. 5th, 2007 02:11 pm (UTC) | | Thread | Reply

[info]mistress_mab

Re: Better Business Bureau

As they are not members of the BBB, I doubt they care about their rating.
Posted on Aug. 6th, 2007 01:11 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]strictly_mod

Re: Better Business Bureau

They are trying to do an IPO. A negative rating can affect them.
Posted on Aug. 6th, 2007 01:45 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]mistress_mab

Re: Better Business Bureau

I should have added that there's actually no rating system. The BBB lists how many complaints a company has received and what the status is, if I recall correctly.
Posted on Aug. 6th, 2007 01:49 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]strictly_mod

Re: Better Business Bureau

True. But I do know that I, as a consumer, and my ex husband, who is a stock broker, both use the BBB to calculate our use of a company and it's reputation and reliability.

Again, it may not change all that much, but it is something legitimate. Complaints are also being made to the California Attorney General's office.
Posted on Aug. 6th, 2007 10:01 am (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

(Anonymous)

if you paid with a credit card

why not file to get your money back?
Posted on Aug. 6th, 2007 05:14 pm (UTC) | | Reply

[info]elfwreck

1) The TOS hasn't changed; the way they apply it has. That might be close enough, or might not.

2) They have the right to delete people on a whim. Where they are potentially liable is in implying they would warn people before deletions, and that they were accepting of fandom, in order to drive up perm acct sales, and then changed. Bait-and-switch is illegal.

Either of those involves splitting some pretty fine hairs. Their phrasing was dodgy and waffling. That, in itself, can be evidence that they were trying to deceive customers--but it'd take a lot of quotes to prove it.
Posted on Aug. 6th, 2007 10:44 pm (UTC) | | Reply