An intention to enter into an online transaction for the point of a business agreement is any attempt to create any online account. This is particularly true for social media where the user is the product and their data is a revenue generating business commodity immediately available regardless of whether that user ever returns to the site.
This legal decision is a very good thing. The terms of service clauses only exist to limit the rights of the user for the sake of lowering litigation risks against the site in question. These agreements need to be destroyed. If any site wishes to limit user rights or limit risks of litigation they should directly alter their products to apply such limits directly.
So long as online business makes a good faith effort to limit functional access to their products/services that would otherwise violate the agreeable terms they are already legally covered from litigation risks without need for a terms of service agreement, such as anti-hacking laws. The point of these agreements is to allow such websites necessary protection from litigation intentionally withholding any equivalent functional limitations upon their users. The reason for that is they want user contributions with the fewest barriers upon those users and the maximal harvesting of the resulting user engagement.
> And merely awareness is not enough.
How do you legally prove intention? The practical distinction that applied to this particular legal case is that the plaintiff merely read the site's terms of service agreement insinuating that had they not been serious about opening an account they would not have taken such an effort. They did not take any further action to engage that business, however, such as ever navigating to the site's account creation page.
I hope this is a step towards voiding terms of services protections from online businesses.
This legal decision is a very good thing. The terms of service clauses only exist to limit the rights of the user for the sake of lowering litigation risks against the site in question. These agreements need to be destroyed. If any site wishes to limit user rights or limit risks of litigation they should directly alter their products to apply such limits directly.
So long as online business makes a good faith effort to limit functional access to their products/services that would otherwise violate the agreeable terms they are already legally covered from litigation risks without need for a terms of service agreement, such as anti-hacking laws. The point of these agreements is to allow such websites necessary protection from litigation intentionally withholding any equivalent functional limitations upon their users. The reason for that is they want user contributions with the fewest barriers upon those users and the maximal harvesting of the resulting user engagement.
> And merely awareness is not enough.
How do you legally prove intention? The practical distinction that applied to this particular legal case is that the plaintiff merely read the site's terms of service agreement insinuating that had they not been serious about opening an account they would not have taken such an effort. They did not take any further action to engage that business, however, such as ever navigating to the site's account creation page.
I hope this is a step towards voiding terms of services protections from online businesses.