The entire notion of being allowed to enforce arbitrary terms of service is absurd. There are probably a handful of terms everyone agrees are reasonable (no attempted hacking, rate limits, do not break laws) and everything else should be unenforceable. Especially garbage like what you're allowed to do with the stuff you get from the service even while not using the service, or about setting up competing products. It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it.
> It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it.
Or Disney telling you they are exempt from killing someone in their theme park restaurants because you signed up to Disney+… https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go
Interesting, that case was just withdrawn a few days ago:
https://www.allergicliving.com/2026/03/03/lawsuit-against-di...
"Disney dropped its bid to force arbitration over the streaming service’s clause in August 2024, following a barrage of public backlash."
And not because it was a clearly outrageous thing to do.
The flood of Disney+ cancellations likely contributed to their decision to back down on Kimmel, kind of heartening to know we've still got some power over these mega corps.
I have no power over any of them. I avoid them all like the plague they are.
It gets worse with added context: signed up for a free trial of Disney+ on a PS5 many years ago.
It gets worse x2: the executor of the estate having signed up for Disney+ means the estate of the deceased loses the right to sue, despite the deceased having never signed up. Like a client being bound by all unrelated legal agreements their lawyer entered into.
(If I recall the details correct, it has been a while since I read into that case.)
Except it is a stretch to say it is "their theme park restaurant". This story was dramatically oversimplified in the media and Disney's position was nowhere near as unreasonable as everyone understands it to be.
The argument was not "they agreed to a EULA 5 years ago and therefore mandatory arbitration in all disputes with Disney".
This is a privately owned restaurant at a glorified shopping mall within the larger Walt Disney World resort. If you died due to a severe allergic reaction at a normal restaurant in a normal shopping mall in Florida the mall owners would generally not be liable unless there's something else going on.
The theory that Disney is liable here is more than anything based on the *restaurant featuring on their app.* The EULA for *that app* would certainly be relevant to this argument.
Now, the Disney lawyers also tried to argue that the Disney+ EULA would actually (at least plausibly) be relevant. That is more than a bit of a stretch, especially for a free trial from years ago, and I'd be surprised (but IANAL) if such a theory would actually hold up in court. Still, on a spectrum from "person died due to maintenance failure on a Magic Kingdom ride" to "person died from going to a restaurant featured on a Disney+ program", if you're arguing that the Disney+ EULA is relevant, this is a whole lot closer to the latter than the former.
It's my belief the Disney+ EULA claim was just the lawyers doing the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" shtick (no pun intended). They knew it was likely to not hold up, but tried it anyway because, if it did, it helps future claims.
> It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it.
and you are not allowed to criticize it or write about the size of it or how much meat there is in it or how filling it is to eat the burger.
and you are definitely not allowed to compare it to burgers from other companies.
and you're not allowed to open a restaurant (same food industry == competition) if you have even took one bite of the burger
Not allowing to criticize is practically a law in some European countries
https://ppc.land/german-businesses-systematically-delete-cri...
A system being abused by mass-false-reports =/= "practically a law".
And the US with Oracle famously making it illegal to benchmark the performance of their database.
Didn't Atlassian have a clause in their TOS where you weren't allowed to discuss the performance of their cloud?
Because never before have we seen inverse power laws applied to table queries we were told would be faster than Postgres. They lied.
Please do not inquire about the location of the beef.
Not to mention the unreasonable length and complexity of these things. I’ve seen shorter contracts for mergers and acquisitions.
The pro tip is pasting such long ToS into NotebookLM and asking it to list e.g. top 5 surprising clauses (if you ask just about surprising clauses it treats you like an idiot and lists everything)
But that gives you absolutely no legal advantage whatsoever, so you might as well save your time and not do it.
You're suffering from the unfortunate fallacy of "this has no immediate concrete value to my particular concern, so it is altogether worthless"
> lists everything
To be fair existence of TOS is suspiring.
Unfortunately the only way this changes is if a company writes a just enough unreasonable ToS, and someone violates it in just the right way and the company decides to enforce said ToS, and the user fights back, and this all ends in court.
I'd be surprised if all those stars align anytime soon.
Actually it's like McDonalds removing pickles from the big mac after it was already served to your table
>It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it.
And the way the resteraunt this right is by covering their walls with TOS text like an Egyptian tomb.
Like if Subway had a terms of service as wallpaper instead of weird news articles.
> The entire notion of being allowed to enforce arbitrary terms of service is absurd. There are probably a handful of terms everyone agrees are reasonable (no attempted hacking, rate limits, do not break laws) and everything else should be unenforceable.
Why? Why should a government prohibit private parties from agreeing to anything other than those 3 things?
> Especially garbage like what you're allowed to do with the stuff you get from the service even while not using the service, or about setting up competing products. It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it.
It is vaguely like that, but but I'm not sure the analogy facilitates understanding of this subject. McDonalds shouldn't tell you how you can eat your burger, therefore... companies must not enforce any terms on their services aside from those things. Why?
I'm not saying any term should be enforceable. Contract law has a long history against that. I just wonder how and where you draw the line and what existing law is insufficient.
This is one of these cases like gun crime where:
USA: There is no solution!
Rest of world: slightly embarrassed look
There are legal terms and concepts like good faith, expected and unexpected terms, reasonable expectations, abuse of a legally unsophisticated party and so on. In other countries, neither the fiction that everyone reads or is expected to read the 10-page "dining contract" of a restaurant exists nor is it allowed (enforceable) to put any unrelated or unreasonable crap in there.
During friendly discussions and arguments my lawyer friends like to make the same kind of thought terminating cliche filed arguments that you just replied to.
I think that your response really hit the nail on the head and it raises the question my mind of how do we most effectively eliminate these kinds of malformed American-system brained thoughts from disrupting real and possibly even productive conversations about these kinds of topics?
>Why should a government prohibit private parties from agreeing to anything other than those 3 things?
because ToS have been long used to demand unreasonable things and threaten people with expensive lawsuits. The advantage of companies losing bullying power significantly outweighs the disadvantage of less business freedom
ToS are normally "contracts" (hard to even call them that) between a large corporation with very high resources for a lawsuit and an individual with very low resources. The power imbalance makes challenging ToS for the individual unfeasible in 99% of cases
> because ToS have been long used to demand unreasonable things and threaten people with expensive lawsuits. The advantage of companies losing bullying power significantly outweighs the disadvantage of less business freedom
Why those in particular though? The criminal law one sure that's a part of contract law already. Why the others? Why not different ones? It was just asserted that those were reasonable and no other terms are.
The original comment asserted that there are “probably” a finite list of reasonable things everyone could agree on. The examples were parenthetical and surely not meant to be the last word.
The point they were making (rightly or wrongly) seems to be that contract law just isn’t the right way of managing consumer-business relationships. I suspect that actually meshes with the intuitions of a broad swath of the population, who want a reliable, predictable, consistent, and consumer-beneficial set of norms and laws around all consumption so that it is easy to manage and understand when you are departing from the norm and to be able to confidently conduct a public life knowing that your purchases are not subjecting you to any surprising gotchas other than having lost the money and having acquired a product.
You could take this line of thought charitably in another direction to assert that “unusual” agreements are presumed unenforceable but not that there are no legal mechanisms for adding additional clauses.
Perhaps there should be a limited set of standard clauses that companies can pick from and that consumers can read and compare like food labels.
> Why should a government prohibit private parties from agreeing to anything other than those 3 things?
Because a severe power imbalance allows for abuse, and governments should prohibit such abuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability
In particular, one private party has an expensive and highly educated legal team and a lot of time. The other party wanted to eat a burger and didn't have a week to do a thorough legal review of the TOS to check if they were potentially selling any kidneys for a dollar.
"Inequality of bargaining power is generally thought to undermine the freedom of contract, resulting in a disproportionate level of freedom between parties, and it represents a place at which markets fail. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power
> Why should a government prohibit private parties from agreeing to anything other than those 3 things?
> I'm not saying any term should be enforceable. Contract law has a long history against that. I just wonder how and where you draw the line and what existing law is insufficient.
This is not a magic list of 3 things that I think is complete.
I think there is a compromise between allowing companies to add arbitrary terms, including some which are enforceable but (by my feeling) unreasonable, and excluding unreasonable terms completely with a blanket ban, which no doubt would result in some companies being unable to add reasonable terms that are not in the list.
I think if we picked the 3 terms I outlined in my comment, the result would be a more pleasant situation than the one we have.
You could just say I disagree about what is an enforceable term. The point of the analogy is to show how ridiculous I find the current judicial reasoning, which is something along the lines of "if you don't like the term, you don't have to use the service, so it doesn't really matter how restrictive the terms are". I really think this is how particularly US judges think about this sort of thing, and I think it does a lot of harm to society. People find it obviously unreasonable for McDonalds to say how you can eat your burger, or for a book store to say what you can do with the information in your book, but when a service tells you how you can use the data you get from them, it's fair game. It's ethically inconsistent.
I know discussing HN behavior is off topic, but parent's comment is a perfect example of something unpopular that adds to conversation.
We shouldn't use votes to squelch opinions we don't hold. We should use them to improve the discourse.
Why? Because ToS as they exist today are unreasonably long and not understandable by the average person. Yet nearly everything we buy today comes with a complex ToS.
Added to that is the forced arbitration clauses they exist in most ToS. See the example about Disney getting out of a wrongful death suit at a theme park beciaee the plaintiff had a free Disney account for a PS5 that he bought many years earlier.
Tl;dr - buying a piece of software or home appliance shouldn’t come with more strings attached than buying a piece of real estate.
Because the power is disproportionally concentrated with one party - the service provider. The users of the service are numerous, comparatively small and uncoordinated.
In a situation like that, users have no means of resisting egregious terms, and no you cannot pull up stuff like "if you don't like it, don't buy it". As I wrote, the users are uncoordinated, and would take a huge effort to coordinate. Boycotting services rarely works (if ever). So what we end up with is that legal teams employed by firms optimize to shove as much bullshit into ToS as they can, the users grind their teeth and bear the bullshit, and get shittier service. Nobody really wins, because I'd argue the marginal gain for the company is minimal at best from this.
The government is not there just to enforce laws, but also to legislate such that the scales are balanced. Otherwise we may as well live in a dictatorship.
But some terms were claimed to be reasonable. If power being disproportionate is sufficient to void terms, why not those terms too?
> The government is not there just to enforce laws, but also to legislate such that the scales are balanced. Otherwise we may as well live in a dictatorship.
Should the state just prohibit all agreements between two parties unless the state's adjudicator decides they are exactly equal in "power" and permits it? Sounds horrific, like a dictatorship. The government is not my guardian and does not do my thinking for me. I get that many people are subservient and would much prefer that, but that's no good either. There's an enormous middle ground between anarchy and "the state intervenes to allegedly 'balance the scales' in every aspect of peoples' private lives".
> If power being disproportionate is sufficient to void terms, why not those terms too?
Power being disproportionate is obviously not sufficient to void terms - that's not what the comment you're replying to said. It is necessary to void terms when there is a power imbalance.
> Should the state just prohibit all agreements between two parties unless the state's adjudicator decides they are exactly equal in "power" and permits it?
This is obviously ridiculous and makes me think you are not arguing in good faith. Terms have to justify their existence according to logical principles that we argue about. It does not follow that there has to be a "state's adjudicator"! I am just describing how democracies come up with laws - it is not some fantasy Orwellian nightmare.
> I get that many people are subservient and would much prefer that
Ironic comment!
> Power being disproportionate is obviously not sufficient to void terms - that's not what the comment you're replying to said. It is necessary to void terms when there is a power imbalance.
What are you trying to say here? I didn't claim the previous poster didn't think it was necessary, I was just commenting on the sufficiency part of the claim -- sufficient being a subset of necessary.
> This is obviously ridiculous and makes me think you are not arguing in good faith.
What is ridiculous is that you're pretending not to recognize a reductio ad absurdum, particularly in the context of a reply that included McDonalds dictating how you eat a hamburger! Makes me think you are not arguing in good faith, I may be forced to report you to an adjudicator to rule on how we are permitted to debate.
> Terms have to justify their existence according to logical principles that we argue about.
And that's exactly what I'm asking about. OP made a claim about what terms were "justified" and I'm trying to find out the basis for them.
> Ironic comment!
It isn't, you're just unable to address it.
> Should the state just prohibit all agreements between two parties unless the state's adjudicator decides they are exactly equal in "power" and permits it?
It's pretty simple. You can write whatever you want into a contract, but if you want to enforce an unreasonable term, you will lose in court and might be forced to remove the term from current and future contracts. That's how it works everywhere. The difference between legislations is just what is considered a reasonable term.
Why needlessly complicate this with so many obtuse hypotheticals when you can just look at other countries that have objectively lower crime rates, greater citizen happiness levels, lower wealth inequality do it?
> Should the state just prohibit all agreements between two parties unless the state's adjudicator decides they are exactly equal in "power" and permits it.
This is a strawman and you know it. Please at least make an attempt to argue in good faith, otherwise there's no point.
Of course there should be a reasonable middle-ground. The current situation with completely bogus ToS is not it.
Let me turn it around: should the state just abandon it's duty of creating an fair and equal playing field between large corporations and clients and let society devolve into a corporatocracy where laws are enforced purely to further corporate interests? Because that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting.
See? Not particularly conductive to discourse, is it :D
> This is a strawman and you know it.
Uh yes? And you clearly know it too. It was a bit like your McDonalds strawman.
> Please at least make an attempt to argue in good faith, otherwise there's no point.
No need to get in a huff when we obviously both know what we're talking about. It's not conducive to the discussion.
> Of course there should be a reasonable middle-ground. The current situation with completely bogus ToS is not it.
I don't know exactly what the current situation with completely bogus ToS is, I'm willing to accept it could be adjusted. I was asking specifically about your proposed adjustment to it though. Your reasons for the new framework you suggested.
> Let me turn it around: should the state just abandon it's duty of creating an fair and equal playing field between large corporations and clients and let society devolve into a corporatocracy where laws are enforced purely to further corporate interests? Because that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting.
That isn't what I was suggesting. I was asking you how you came to your conclusion in the previous post. (EDIT: Sorry you did not conclude that, the grandparent did the parent of my first post you replied to, but you posted seemingly in support)