23andMe just sent out an email trying to trick customers into accepting a TOS change that will prevent you from suing them after they literally lost your genome ro thieves.
Do what it says in the email and email arbitrationoptout@23andme.com that you do not agree with the new terms of service and opt out of arbitration.
If you have an account with them, do this right now.
Here’s an email template for what to write: https://www.patreon.com/posts/94164861
I don’t see how an email that has no proof of delivery (could have ended in spam for example) would be legally binding.
Accepting a ToS update simply by virtue of no action is also questionable unless provisions permitting that were in the ToS you’ve accepted and even then it would not work in the European Union, because that’s listed in the forbidden clauses registry.
I thought the same thing when my Disney+ rate went up a couple months ago and I couldn’t find the email warning about it in my inbox or spam folders.
Why do we let these companies get away with everything? If the rates are going up, show me in the app/ui. Make it opt in. Disable my ability to watch anything until I approve the increase in spend. It should be illegal to just change the terms of a contract and say “I sent you an email.”
You most likely did not officially consent to the changes and have a prolonged right to terminate the contract without the need of upholding the contract duration.
It’s probably mich cheaper just to deal with the few that complain rather than sending out hundreds of thousands of paper letters or having them confirm the changes electronically and terminating the contracts of those who did not accept.
I guarantee the original contract said the rates are subject to change without notice. Plus, raising the prices will definitely increase CS call volume more than sending out notices.
Sounds illegal. Maybe in countries with weak consumer rights.
Even it being “questionable” is a fucking outrage – it should be so blatantly, obviously, disallowed that a lawyer should lose their license just for proposing it!
The entire concept is a goddamn farce.
Nope. The silent consent concept is a nice thing, it solve a lof of problems both for companies and private citizens. I could offer plenty of examples of the correct use of the concept that solve problems.
23andMe is just doing a big dick move trying to avoid to be sued for the leak.
I would like some of your plenty of examples.
Can you share some of those examples please?
Replying to you, but it is valid also for @porksoda@lemmy.world.
If you ask for permission to do certain works in your house, you present the project to your city council, or the required office, and if after a given time (depending on what what you want to do) they don’t object then you have the permission. Before the introduction of the silent consent, you have no idea about how many time you need to wait before you get an answer and it was prone to corruption while now the “yes” is the default unless there are real problems. It is not a perfect solution, but it is way better than before.
Basically all the interactions with the authorities are on a silent consent base when the authority in question does not need to produce something to give back.
All the minor changes to the contract with banks, utility companies and so on: they propose the new terms and if you don’t accept in a given time from the moment you read it you accept it. By law in the event I refuse the new terms, I don’t end with the old ones but the contract end and in the case it has penalties for early terminations, these are nullified if the penalties are applied to the other side.
On the other hand, this way a company has a certain deadline after which the new terms come into effect and as a side bonus the fact that it has to handle only the exceptions (who don’t accept) and not all the ones that are ok.
Wedding publications, since we have not the whole “if you disagree to this marriage talk now or shut up forever” part of the ceremony, to be sure that there is no hidden problems we put an announce in a designated public place (usually a notice board at the town hall and/or your church) for a given period of time, usually 2 or 3 weeks, and then if nobody object you can marry.
I agree that this is probably something old that were done back at the time but it work on the same principle. Of course now there are other ways to know if someone is already married (on the civil side) or is divorced (on the religious side) or there are some hindrances.
And before someone ask, we also have examples where this approach were shoot down: the last of these is when a big back decide to move part of their clients to a virtual back (a different branch of itself) and they were stopped on the basis that this change it too radical to be done this way (even if the notice was about 6 months). Other cases hit utilities companies which in some cases where forced by a judge to pay compensation to the customers because what they done was basically illegal and the silent consent where then void.
Thanks for the insight!
Not OP, here’s a Law Stack Exchange thread where silence (in conjunction with other actions) is consent.
Here’s where silence is NOT consent.
It’s not, and TOS are not legally binding either
By viewing this post, you agree to gift 50% of all after tax future earnings to PersnickityPenguin. Additionally, your entire Steam Library of games is hereby under sole ownership of PersnickityPenguin. All games and/or steam account login and password must be provided to PersnickityPenguin.Failure to transfer all financial and virtual property within (30) days is considered a breach of contract. Each incident of a breach of contract will result in a $500,000 penalty per incident. Viewer agrees to these terms of service. Any dispute or breach of contract will result in additional legal fees to be paid by the viewer entering into this contract pursuant to paragraph (A).damn. I lost. Give me your bank details to send you your money.
Ok, check your PM
lmao after seeing your name I can’t believe it was you all the time
Hmm, let’s see… social security number 000-00-0002 (damn, Roosevelt).
My ISP, phone company, bank, insurance company and everyone else send me TOS related messages from time to time. Usually, the message is something along the lines of: “We’re altering the deal. Pray we don’t alter it any further”
It doesn’t seem fair to me, but since everyone is doing it, there probably isn’t a law against it.
Every time an ISP does that around here they send you a notification via certified mail with a prepaid return envelope and a service cancellation form included - you can decide to not continue using the service without any early cancellations fees etc.
If they fail to do that they get fined by consumer protection agency, are required to return any fees they charged based on the change and they get to start over - send a notification that follows the rules resetting the clock for those who opt to cancel
You’d think that, but you know those “don’t remove or warranty is void” stickers on stuff? They’re illegal.
Not illegal, just not legally binding.
deleted by creator
Why would you need proof of delivery? The original email gives instructions. You follow those instructions and can prove you did so with date and timestamps. I don’t see the issue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-repudiation
Legally you have to be able to prove someone received a thing. It’s why you get served when you’re sued. An agent physically hands you the complaint (or whatever they’re called). If the papers were put in the mail the person being sued could say they never received them.
Couldn’t the same be said about the TOS updates though? Would they not need to prove it was delivered?
Exactly. That’s why an email saying you are losing your rights unless you opt out is invalid. You cant prove that i ever saw/received that email
That’s the whole point. They can force you to agree to updated TOS before they allow you to access their app.
Can’t you trace an email and prove it was delivered? Even mail you sign for only proves you received it, not that you opened it.
No. You can confirm the server received it. That’s different from a user opening it and reading it
You can’t prove that person ever saw that email.