Food delivery EULA versus 7th Amendment: EULA wins. Bill of Rights loses

[@Charly_Dont_Surf]

Had to a visit a new doctor the other day. When signing the necessary paperwork I crossed out the parts that force me to pay the amount my insurance would not cover. Doc and staff looked at me a little cross eyed. I no longer care.

[@rossmanngroup]

This. I have to tell you the cost upfront before I fix your device. But they don't have to tell you the cost until weeks after they fix you? AND they don't have a "no fix, no fee" policy ? Fk that. Ask for what you want and I'll pay you, do that weaseley shit of making it up later and I'm not. I'm happy I've never lived caring about my credit score.

[@NostalgiaHDOS]

@@rossmanngroupthe American healthcare system is a racket. They will intentionally over price their procedures then “write” off a majority of the supposed cost for taxes.

[@chench1lla]

When I did the same thing at a dentist they got me a new form and said I have to agree with all of it or I have to find another dentist, I caved in.

[@NostalgiaHDOS]

KZbin deleted my reply Womp Womp

[@jamesmana5247]

Me all well. Also, I have fired attorneys, doctors, dentist, eye doctors and a whole list of other. I am paying the bill and I demand respect, honesty and no camel shit. I also when signing etc. I always say under duress.

[@scarletsun04]

"including your heirs" >my grandchildren in 100 years learning that they cant sue tesla after getting ran over because i used twitter to read some games news in 2023

[@maverick9708]

Unironically the direction we are headed if things don't change

[@EvenTheDogAgrees]

Lol, you think Tesla is still going to be around in 100 years?

[@paulofrota3958]

​@@EvenTheDogAgreesthat's not what this person said... Reading comprehension is hard, huh?

[@erikkayV]

@@paulofrota3958 maybe I am having trouble with comprehension but yes, that is what he said. His grandchildren, in 100 years, getting hit by a tesla and not being able to sue due to him using twitter 100 years prior.

[@damiang888]

@@EvenTheDogAgrees Why wouldn't they? you think there will be less suckers in 100 years? Like the saying goes, a tesla customer is born every minute

[@erebusvonmori8050]

At this point the USA simply doesn't have any consumer rights.

[@fettel1988]

You have the right to be a consumer.

[@nah-dx3wc]

Eh, some. Not enough

[@TylerLinner]

​@@fettel1988Right? More like duty. Remember that after 9/11, President Bush advised everyone to buy more sh!t

[@IndyMiraaga]

@@fettel1988 *the obligation

[@chonasassl2558]

Yeah, not enough. A country should look after the people too, not only the firms and army, which are both important as well. ​@@nah-dx3wc

[@Gandingas]

Can't we do the same to them? For example, send them an email that says, "By accepting my payment and receiving this email you have agreed to me having coitus with your wife and or significant other of anyone in your company, to cancel this agreement you are required to send a writen note on a 24 karat gold tablet to my address within 24 hours of recieving this email otherwise you have agreed to these terms"

[@bluesteelbass]

@@QuentinStyger Send it to the corporation's official postal address, via certified mail, will make it work.

[@arakwar]

Don't do anything absurd, but do send them something like "by accepting my payment you agree to cover your product with a 5 year warranty."

[@DashMan-g7z]

You can but you'll need sue them for 10 years before your case get to court.

[@ВладиславФесенко-к1м]

Wasn't there a Russian guy who did this with a bank contract? Can't find the article rn (as well don't remember how it all ended), but if I recall correctly, there was a hyperlink with full terms included on the page that he altered and the bank signed off and never checked. The man wrote himself some bullshit like "upon termination for any cause bank pays me a lot of money" and such Edit: they did go into court but settled out of it, booring. At least they had a courtesy to give the guy a semi-good card after he dropped his claim for 24 million rubles (2008-2013 money) that they technically should've honoured. A rather quick change of tongue after the CEO personally promised fraud charges for the guy

[@adrianalexandrov7730]

@@DashMan-g7z better go after daughter then ))

[@triplefreeerror]

how does a TOS signed by one person apply to two different people?

[@JohnDoe-qz1ql]

It doesn't. Probably pocketed judges...

[@CoozyBear]

''trust me bro''

[@KupoJoker2]

A TOS might include provisions that affect third parties indirectly, like prohibiting certain types of sharing or requiring users to ensure that others using the service comply with the terms.

[@JohnDoe-qz1ql]

@@KupoJoker2 Like he said in the video, that's pretty much unenforceable today. How will they know when another uses the service???

[@BoredPodcaster]

When consumer protection agencies don't do their job, it becomes really easy to screw people over by technically breaking consumer protections. Especially when at most, you'll only have to be 1% or less of your earnings as a punishment when sued by the FTC.

[@greatestcait]

The Constitution needs to apply to private companies too. They shouldn't be able to supercede our human rights enshrined in the constitution.

[@The_General_Zubas]

If "Corporations are People" as Mitt Romney said, then? they are heald to account. Its either that, or we do not care about anythign else but Satan's will, as a Government.

[@robmorgan1214]

It does. Corporations are literally creations of the government. The government shields the officers of the company from PERSONAL liability etc. The judges got around this when they simply stopped following the constitution and the law and began using fancy language and sophistry in order to bamboozle the rubes on behalf of the people who pay their bribes.

[@carbonstar9091]

That's the best part. The Constitution applies to corporations when it helps them get away with things. And it doesnt apply when it helps them screw people over.

[@Dontlicktheballoons]

They can't. The judge made an illegal ruling and in a just world, would be removed.

[@The_General_Zubas]

@@Dontlicktheballoons I agree, the Judges cannot judge if they are just as corrupt as the politicians whom are also bought out. Everyone is on the company dime, so why have a constitution, when the Company Charter seems to matter more?

[@Micocare]

I get the feeling that your Bill of Rights is more of a Bill of Suggestions.

[@insoporous9978]

Bill of obstacles for some. Specifically named as such, recently, I think.

[@AngryToast93]

We have reached peak tyranny.

[@nah-dx3wc]

@@AngryToast93not yet

[@ScienceReasonLove]

You and George Carlin both

[@RicardoSantos-oz3uj]

You are many or as little rights as your willingless to FIGHT for them. As such the meek and cowards have no rights.

[@JaekSean]

Wait until companies start waving the 13th amendment and you agree to legally become their property when you sign up for a free trial 😂

[@Yaivenov]

Family Court won't like them horning in on their anti13A scam.

[@knm080xg12r6j991jhgt]

Or buy socks.

[@Yaivenov]

Looks like yt deleted my comment about familial judicary breaking number 13.

[@barryb2704]

Software agreements. Look at the recent Adobe one where they claimed all your previous work on the product.

[@StratRev323]

1800s African Natives had this experience

[@mugthemagpie3001]

Pardon my language but how the fuck some TOS and EULA can be HIGHER than Constitutional amendments? Constitution has the priority even over the EU regulations here in Poland. End of the subject if something is conflicting.

[@phantomtr1]

corruption

[@olmsfam1]

Contract law. its older than the constitution, inherited from the old world, and the basis upon which capitalism runs. Contract law supercedes EVERYTHING

[@LennyMiller739]

Lol. You're talking about different constitutions.....

[@Jukantos]

Welcome to the new Lockner era

[@slipper8105]

$$$$$$

[@elinope4745]

If prenups can be thrown out of courts, than so can EULA's for the exact same reasons.

[@Legweb]

If being unable to use a product you purchased and are unable to get a refund, because of length of time has passed, unless you sign an EULA that clearly does not favor you, sounds exactly like signing under duress.

[@omgused]

What if you are a car mechanic and a customer refuses to have his dangerous breaks replaced and have him sign a waver that any accident caused by his refusal to replace them, gets in such an accident? If this goes on wouldn't that mean that he can still sue despite the agreement?

[@elinope4745]

@@omgused what? Why would anyone even entertain the idea that it would be the mechanics fault. It wouldn't stand a chance against the drinking and driving charges. The only way it could be pinned on a mechanic is if the mechanic did the work on a part of the vehicle that was determined to have unreasonable failure and then was also found to be negligent in their work on that specific part. It would be much easier to sue the car manufacturer. That particular failure would then have to be proven as the cause of the accident, so even at that point it's still more likely to be the driver's fault.

[@bowenfeng9750]

​@@omgusedBecause in the case of the car mechanic's waiver, he/she weren't violating the US Constitution. It's pretty simple, really

[@RoundShades]

​@@omgused, they could, and the paper would totally damn their case.

[@mrlank]

I have yet to ever hear anyone give a compelling reason why any company can say “you forfeit your right to (insert legal right here) when you agree to do business with us”. If someone has the perception that they got screwed over, they should be able to pursue any legal option for righting that wrong. This is not a controversial statement

[@MonkeyJedi99]

I would be okay with arbitration as an OPTION. If a company wants me to use their arbitration and waive my right to trial by jury, they need to get my agreement at the time of purchase and offer me a 5-10% discount off what I'm paying.

[@aznhomig]

Ultimately, people should litigate if they feel they have been wronged by another party, especially if the other party is some megacorp with some ridiculous EULA. These EULA's first and foremost serve a purpose to try to absolve any responsibility from the company screwing people over, whether it dissuades a wronged party from levying a lawsuit in the first place, or a court agrees that the EULA absolves the company of any responsibility. It's a totally one-sided affair that IMO goes against basic contract law like due consideration and fair exchange.

[@TheLinuxGallery-qz2vs]

There used to be rulings based on "shocking the conscience" of the jury or the judge They just kind of stopped doing that after about 2014 - when they realized that big tech companies were having an enron every day, and they couldn't be shocked every time they walked into a courtroom with tech representatives And now, they kind of make their conclusions, and try to steer the jury (if there is one) into finding what they want to hear And they usually want to hear some crazy stuff

[@Buffalo_Soldier]

There are inalienable rights. One of them is about freedom and you can't become someones slave, no matter if he pays you or your family. . . There should be similar right to arbitration by proper organs that we can not sign off - ever?

[@FantomMisfit]

Other Judges have ruled your basic human rights can't be signed away.

[@Puggernuts]

This is bullshit, I am beyond sick of big companies weaseling their way out of ANY RESPONSIBILITY AT ALL!!!

[@TheGuyWhoIsSitting]

Even when they do get caught the punishment is a drop in the bucket.

[@Puggernuts]

@@TheGuyWhoIsSitting Right?? It's always a fine that is .01% of their net worth. BS

[@OutLanderUSN]

Won't change until people stop fighting over guns and abortion.

[@rh906]

Sure you are.

[@quillclock]

@@rh906 lol thats some crappy bait. try again

[@rexdonahough241]

Welcome to the terrifying new future where you have to fight against everyone while still trying to be a good person

[@custos3249]

What do you mean "future"?

[@bloodofthelamb13]

Welcome to the future, where people think fighting is bad. Cowardice is an evil, not violence. Violence is action; cowardice is character. One can be good while the other never is.

[@Emancipatriot]

@@bloodofthelamb13as long as you aren’t committing acts of aggression towards other, you should be allowed to do whatever you want

[@tachobrenner]

​@@bloodofthelamb13Violence is crap, tough guy. Cycles of violence have destroyed many lives.

[@Shrouded_reaper]

​@tachobrenner Violence is the means by which civilisation is held together mate. You are ignorant.

[@ashleythomas9671]

I'm starting to wonder if I can tape a sheet of paper to a brick, that says something alone the lines of, 'By having this brick land on the floor of your building, you agree to give away your right to sue, or seek damages against the thrower of said brick. If you dont agree with this, please make sure no bricks land on your floor while also sending a no brick notice every hour.' before throwing a brick through Uber HQ's window.

[@operacarmen]

anti-Semitic to criticize the legal system

[@angrysunflower222]

​@operacarmen by your logic, it's antisemitic to forget to brush your teeth at night

[@SuperFlashDriver]

@@angrysunflower222 More likely dictating what people can and cannot do based on communistic/fascist rulings.

[@operacarmen]

@@angrysunflower222 brushing teeth isn't a semitic industry

[@misterx420]

"You don't have rights. You have privileges. And they can take them away anytime they want!" - George Carlin

[@emanuellandeholm5657]

I've been using Strava to log my hikes for a couple of years now. Today they hit me with the update you can't opt out of. No "cancel" button. I clicked read more, and, yeah. They're going to train some AI using data from my hikes now. I just laughed. What can you do? I also have a Samsung update pending that I've been avoiding for like a week now because I've no idea what it's going to break. Is it going to change the phone app to use a font I can't read? Is it going to copyright strike my custom ring tone? Who tf knows? I hate tech in 2024.

[@TheEvilAdministrator]

Scorched earth. If they insist on ridiculous terms for their service, stop using it and - if you can + if it doesn't already exist - spend some time developing something that does the exact same thing. Then release it for free as privacy-respecting open-source software. If such a thing already exists, then try to contribute with the aim of helping it become better than the commercial software (in this case Strava). If it gains a significant userbase, that'll hit them right where it hurts - in the revenue stream. A market segment that used to be profitable now generates no revenue whatsoever. If this happens over and over again in every segment where it can be done, it'll start strangling exploitative businesses out of existence.

[@emanuellandeholm5657]

@@TheEvilAdministrator Yeah. I'm actually a developer. I write code for Linux. Problem is, I need to "root" the damn phone in order to upload my code to my own Samsung computer. Samsung "protects" me from using the computer I bought from them the way I want to. It's absolutely nuts. And about Strava, there's no alternative with the same "free" functionality I look for. I'll just take an L here. I'm ideologically anti-AI, but you win some, you lose some.

[@Bit01]

I'm still pissed at samsung for removing some of the options from my galaxy note 9. There is no option to leave the screen on for more than ten minutes anymore. That's the maximum they allow on my device that I paid for years ago.

[@professorhaystacks6606]

@@emanuellandeholm5657 I stopped getting Samsung. While they are one of the few to make removeable batteries (well, until the EU law recently, so now some new phones technically have them), their firmware locks are ridiculous. Most places you can flash the bios to get around it... the last Samsung phone I got (which I did not realize this feature) actually has a back-up bios to keep you from doing that so when it reboots it undoes that. You'd literally have to hard mod it to root it and at that point you're probably going to destroy the phone so might as well get one from someone else.

[@emanuellandeholm5657]

@@professorhaystacks6606 LR says this all the time. "Brands" don't really matter anymore. They ALL do this shady shit, otherwise they wouldn't be competitive. Race to the bottom enshit.

[@MrBe56]

It's laws like this that make me despise my country of origin. Business and profit apparently triumphs over basic human protections and safety.

[@Pyxis10]

Always have.

[@El_Soy]

@Pyxis10 that's not true, believe it or not there was a period in time where the powers that be tried to ensure that corporations didn't screw people over. Now they're on the same team, though

[@Pyxis10]

@@El_Soy Yes and before that they also didn't. Further they just did it in the southern hemisphere instead of the northern one. But even in the northern one see the 1800's and children being forced to work dangerous machines with little safety to ensure profit. Corporations and their owners will always try to use their outsized wealth to bend the rules towards grabbing as much wealth in whatever way they can as possible.

[@rh906]

So every period of human history ever.

[@dasit6034]

​@@rh906 midwit take

[@TheCod3r]

Unrelated, but on the plus side, I took a sim card out of an Uber Eats order system from a restaurant that got closed down (my brother in law was contracted to empty it out). I stuck it in my 5G modem and now I'm getting a free second Internet connection, courtesy of Uber Eats. That my friends is a WIN!

[@YeahYeahBeebisI]

Little wins for the Little guys!

[@TheCod3r]

@@YeahYeahBeebisI that's the way 😏

[@Derceto00]

Isn't it such a strange coincidence how all these companies wanted to make everything become a "service", starting around 10 years ago? Well, welcome to the "service era', where you exist, to service corporations. 🍻 What a time to be alive.

[@Elemblue2]

Its the WEF. They are a whole other layer on the 50D game of chess the world is. They are all pushing for this, and it is an extension of many political agendas.

[@oldered5663]

Service Era = Service Error

[@thalanoth]

Can I get a legality ruling from this public court by how it's possible to have an automatic driver-installation that EXPLICITY states in a pop-up that if you "remove this box without agreeing" THAT HAS NO OTHER BUTTON THAN AGREE that you "AGREE" to all of their privacy policies??

[@thalanoth]

I took screenshots, I haven no problem sharing lol

[@AnAnonymousAuditor]

If it's a web page, are they trying to take into account people using the browser dev tools (inspect element, the console, etc.)? That would be insane

[@thalanoth]

@@AnAnonymousAuditor It came from an auto-installer on a razer kraken with a windows pop-up. Clicking on the privacy policy link and the eula link leads you to the website that fills you in on what you're now dealing with

[@thalanoth]

@@AnAnonymousAuditor It's not even an htlm thing, you're quite literally simply dealing with a tool that says "congratulations, you plugged me in, we now have everything and you can't do anything about it"

[@thalanoth]

@@AnAnonymousAuditor the web-page from razer you go to does explicitly state all their terms that you somehow just agreed to without reading the insanely fine print in the manual lol

[@niteriderevo9179]

no, just bloody no. the US Constitution and it's amendments take priority over ANY contract, even US law overrides any contract that goes counter to it. it is literally THE highest law of the land. supreme court rulings are literally second only to it

[@DKNguyen3.1415]

"Golden rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules." -Jafar

[@Excell555]

​@@DKNguyen3.1415more specifically who has the guns makes the rules, but those are known to quite like gold.

[@niteriderevo9179]

@@DKNguyen3.1415 fail to see how old [roughly mid 90's] disney stuff relates to this, but lol

[@nathanoher4865]

@@niteriderevo9179they’re saying that the people who make the rules are not the people who make the rules. The actual people in charge of the rules are whoever has the control of the money supply.

[@nonyadamnbusiness9887]

As far as I'm concerned, even attempting to get someone to sign away their rights is coercion and should be a capital crime.

[@Pyxis10]

Enforced by who? People who get paid not to do it?

[@operacarmen]

anti-Semitic comment

[@nonyadamnbusiness9887]

@@operacarmen WTF?

[@topminator2991]

@@nonyadamnbusiness9887 oy vey, be a good goy. Shut up and consume.

[@Nalothisal]

@@operacarmen Okay full stop. How the FUCK does what OP say have to do with antisemitism?

[@gordonfurness6253]

The actual TOS should be questioned in court. A person cannot be forced to give up their rights; certainly not an unknowing 3rd party.

[@adcraziness1501]

We did it to ourselves by our decades and decades of clicking "I agree" without reading anything. I did it too. There's no way I'm reading all of that. They know this. It's the same with our elected representatives; they agree and vote for things they don't read. It's pandemic.

[@riffmondo9733]

It also was happening decades before when applying fir credit cards. Microprint was illegible.

[@marine6680]

Let me get this straight... A driver ran a red light and hit someone. Is the person they hit the person who ordered the food? If not, this shouldn't matter. I don't care if the person who was hit has ever used the service prior. If the person who was hurt did not use the service to place an order, and the driver then injured them during the delivery action... Then the incident did not occur due the person's use of the service... So the arbitration clause should nit apply. If a person walked under the big Uber sign at their headquarters, and it fell and hit them... If they ever used Uber before, are they not allowed to sue for the negligence of not mounting or maintaining the sign kn their property? That is basically what is happening here.

[@commentinglife6175]

From what I understand, the person suing was a passenger in the Uber so the TOS would be at play here. You are right; should the person who was hit sue, even if they were an Uber customer, I don't think a court would come anywhere close to making this ruling - but I could be wrong there with some of our courts.

[@123payattention]

It's interesting they changed this amongst a massive influx of illegal aliens. Almost like they might be protecting themselves against something else here because they are knowingly employing a bunch of illegals

[@LeftovurSecond]

You would also not be allowed to sue if ANY relative signed the document haha. ~10:30 in the video. It’s just ridiculous.

[@123payattention]

@@marine6680 of course my comment got deleted

[@AnotherAustin-z7b]

@@123payattention I found it. It reads "it's interesting they changed this amongst a massive influx of illegal aliens. Almost like they might be protecting themselves against something else here because they are knowingly employing a bunch of illegals." I am working on a video to demonstrate glitches related to the comment functionality, especially on shorts. I will post a video to show you how I found your post.

[@normalchannel2185]

That 3rd party binding stuff in my opinion is BLATANTLY illegal. OTHER than guardians and people who have power of attorney over someone, since I DID NOT consent to that agreement, i cannot be bound if my sister did. Or if my spouse did. Because I DID NOT CONSENT, and consent is the base of contracts. If there is no consent, a contract is null and void(or voidable)

[@acbeaumo]

Didn't Steam recently change their EULA to do away with forced arbitration?

[@Sonario648]

Yeah.

[@OdinsWyrd]

Yes they did hopefully this will be the start of a trend

[@8diva8]

Good Guy Gabe

[@OutLanderUSN]

​@@OdinsWyrd don't hold your breath.

[@Kyugorn]

Rossman actually reported on that in a previous video that was almost 3 minutes long.

[@dotslashdata]

In other news: Valve removed forced arbitration from it's TOS

[@InlineDownhillVancouver]

EULA roofie legal teams be like: Does this broccoli taste like Rohypnol?

[@andym2612]

Rohynol has no taste, that's why it's the perfect drug to drop into somebodies drink without them knowing about it.

[@darrennew8211]

Does this handkerchief smell like Chloroform?

[@originalpne1060]

Even food wasnt safe from this bs

[@thalanoth]

I uhh... just made the mistake of plugging in a new headset... it's absolutely insane what the privacy agreement says lol (which YOU SIGN BY PLUGGING IT IN); basically, we track and use everything you do on your computer, and, for any and all legal obligations WILL hand over anything we've found to be in violation of ... anything... I'm merican babay, but, applying EU (and for some separately dictated CA) law, gives me a middle finger. I got two middle fingers, two middle toes, and will die on this hill: FUCK THIS OVER REGULATION. I can't undo the amount of anger I'm currently experiencing; no clue how you've done it for years

[@blob22201]

You can have regulation or companies rinsing you for everything you've got, pick your poison

[@battokizu]

My headset is a zoom h1n and any headphone I want. Sorry to hear you got eula roofied.

[@Elemblue2]

Turn the rage into the ability to hack.

[@captainfraser3827]

zero out your drives and reinstall your fucking operating system at that point.

[@NoOneFPV]

The 2nd American Revolution is neigh. However, a point I'd like to make is "Unalienable Rights" means they can't be taken away or "waived" to begin with. They are indelible and unrevokable by anyone but a court of law. My question is, why isn't THAT being used in challenging this crap in the first place? Unalienable. Unwaivable. Unenforceable.

[@darklelouchg8505]

Right to Contract is the reason sir. You CAN sign away rights on a non-perpetual basis due to it. The Constitution is meant only as limit on Government, nothing more and nothing less and should remain that way.

[@ORLY911]

@@darklelouchg8505 so when corporations attain the same or more power than government, so much so they actively influence government with money and installed politicians, wherein these corporate entities might as well be a government, the constitution shouldn't apply to them?

[@darklelouchg8505]

@@ORLY911 The Constitution primarily protects individuals from government actions, not from private entities like corporations. Unalienable rights, such as free speech or due process, are safeguarded from government interference, but corporations aren't directly bound by the Constitution in the same way. That's why cases against corporations rely on laws and regulations rather than on Constitutional arguments alone. The U.S. legal system emphasizes individual autonomy and the right to make choices regarding one’s life. This includes the ability to waive certain rights voluntarily, as long as the waiver is informed and made without coercion. As to your specific question now. Corporations can be bound by the Constitution but only under extremely limited circumstances. Specifically see Marsh v. Alabama (1946), wherein a corporation was determined to be bound by the Constitution because it functioned as a public municipality. That said it was far more limited then you might believe, free speech and free exercise of religion apply even in private settings when those settings function as public spaces. Contrary to what you might think, while corporations may wield significant power, they do so within a framework defined by laws and regulations that govern their conduct. They cannot simply declare themselves as governments or assume the same rights and protections under the Constitution. Instead, they remain private entities subject to legal scrutiny and public accountability. Applying the Constitution to corporations wholesale in the same way would blur the lines between public and private sectors, complicating the legal landscape. Even worse then that, it opens the door to even more significant corporate overreach by entrenching them within governmental framework and per sovereign immunity reduce or completely eliminate the effectiveness of regulatory frameworks designed to hold corporations accountable for their actions.

[@Nexalian_Gamer]

9:29. If they start making us show our ID's to buy socks then we should just start throwing the exact amount of cash on the counter and walk out the store. Like the dude that just wanted to buy strawberries in a cashless store in the UK.

[@starbock]

That is a good example of why they want CBDCs (replacing cash), so that you can't even do that.

[@Nexalian_Gamer]

@@starbock If that ever happens just take the stuff without paying for it. Screw them

[@WestCoastWheelman]

​@@Nexalian_Gamer "cashless" you say? Hey everyone, they be giving out free stuff over here!

[@squirty131]

Thats theft

[@mankepoot9440]

@@Nexalian_Gamer They can't take you to court for it if you watched a movie on a streaming service.

[@PeterParkerspideypicscom]

Im so glad that as soon as a Person gets hurt you can kiss your contract clause goodbye in my country

[@AcornElectron]

America! Land of the free and home of the brave! Where everyone can be someone! Or whatever you get told you can be.

[@RicardoSantos-oz3uj]

Land of the FEE, home of the SLAVE

[@aakburns]

You have the only videos I can stand to watch at normal speed. Thanks speaking fast and clearly.

[@MrMoto655]

This would be an Onion article headline 5 years ago.

[@kickskii]

2019 was 5 years ago. This would be an onion article 10 years ago.

[@ADTinman]

I can see "forced arbitration" for the particular transaction agreement outlined in the contract. Expanding that to all transactions between the individual and the company is insane.

[@HowdyHowdy_]

We truly live in the worst timeline.

[@CandyGramForMongo_]

It’s fun to watch Louis when he’s super engaged. Keep it up, Louis, you’re making change happen! I’m seeing your name in all kinds of places!

[@dimoniysh5075]

Fun fact - recenlty Valve removed option of arbitation court because when you use the arbitation in mass against the company their loses far exceed what they would lose in court, so if suddenly a lot of people had same problem and all go to arbitration, company might chose to settle or lose tons of cash

[@dimoniysh5075]

Actually, often companies like discord would cover arbitration costs for you, so if you got banned you can claim that you lost money on that (very easy if you bought nitro and got wrongfully banned or you have bisness connected somehow to discord even inderectly) and they probably just settle and give you lost value. Also, it kinda easy to baid discord into wrongfull ban, but making big company lose money is bad so don't do it

[@MizMite2002]

Will tech go the way of Mission Impossible tape recorder. This laptop will self destruct after 4 yr from purchased.

[@WafflePlaneRC]

It hasn't yet? I was under the belief that it already was. Ironically, the prop tape recorders they used back then probably still work, if they've not been thrown out.

[@bradhaines3142]

legally cant do exactly that but they have other ways

[@Stormer-vx5kw]

thats how long it takes for the battery to break currently

[@ruphite9521]

“Your UberEats burger will self destruct unless consumed in the next 10 minutes”

[@FarmerRiddick]

The founders never foresaw or had any notion of Corporate Tyranny. ... well, aside from such entities that existed back then, like the Hudson Bay Company or the East India Company, or the like perhaps. There is an option available for tyranny, although I believe it was meant for Government. Oh ...Right! Corporations appear to have great influence on government. Just look at history starting around the industrial age onward.

[@maji1618]

uber when you sign up: *hocus pocus, your 7th amendment is bogus*

[@R3_dacted0]

Any law that has violated the Bill of rights and/or constitution should be scrutinized, reevaluated and any parties who where part of having these violating laws instated should be receiving prison time for treason against the government and its people. It doesn't matter if it won votes or deliberations. The Bill of Rights is the Bill of Rights. It is immutable.

[@JohnDoe-qz1ql]

Yes, BUT just as you can Invoke rights you can also Forfeit them....

[@racerex340]

"It is immutable." Not if you have enough lawyers, money, crooked politicians and corrupt SCOTUS judges, the billionaire ruling class has demonstrated many times, especially over the last 15 years, that they can easily make the immutable very much mutable.

[@randomutubr222]

The 7th amendment isn’t incorporated against the states. That’s a very specific statement I just made. If you don’t understand what that sentence means, then you don’t understand the BoR or constitutional jurisprudence in this country.

[@misterx420]

"You don't have rights. You have privileges. And they can take them away anytime they want!" - George Carlin

[@CarrotConsumer]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

[@beee0]

Please be seen by more people so things can change for the better in our messed up world

[@maddogOsrs]

If even 1/3 of our Congress were like Louis we would be so much better off.

[@KunushiH]

Fight the power! Keeping bringing attention to this corporate distopian BS, friend. It's good to spread the word on just how invasive and ridiculous this EULA crap is getting.

[@Littahe]

Ye best start believin' in corporatocracy cyberpunk dystopia's You're in one!

[@DeityHorus]

Yeah but it's boring and we don't have cool augments 😢

[@El_Soy]

@@DeityHorus yeah, all we have are weird freaks on hormones

[@wilberdebeer4696]

​@@DeityHorusDon't worry, the rich will in a few years.

[@Eldgar_Cordero]

The best and coolest guy ever!! Seen him walking and didnt know how to react but he shook my hands and told him dude i love the channel and i love your content and thanked me for following him! Great guy!! By the way society is fudged

[@rebeltaz123]

This is confusing. If I have this right... at some point - long prior to this crash - the crash victim's daughter ordered through UberEats, so now, that "agreement," prevents the VICTIMS of a CRASH - which has NOTHING to do with their use of the UberEats Service - from suing? That is insanity squared! I MIGHT can understand if you get food poisoning from the food you ordered, but you can't sue UberEats because some driver - who you have never met or interacted with, who is not now or ever has delivered you food - runs a red light and hits you!?

[@Elrog3]

Thank you Louis. I've thought the same for a long time but never seen anyone speak on it. The government needs to stop propping up the ability to contract away rights.

[@Emancipatriot]

Companies want to take away our 7th amendment while police and government officials take our 4th and 5th. THESE are the issues that should be discussed in presidential debates with election a month away! And people wonder why I don’t vote. It’s like that Tupac song: they don’t give a ____ about us

[@kellikelli4413]

This issue is so horrifying I'm speechless 😶

[@abrahamlincoln3181]

An EULA seems more like an SNL sketch than a binding contract,maybe we are living in a simulation.

[@termiterasin]

7th amendment is a good point. Companies should not be allowed to ignore rights.

[@brentonhancock]

3:20 - As an Uber Eats driver in Australia (hobby really not full time just to earn extra cash in this hell scape we call reality) I have to do a background check every 12 months, my car rego needs to be uploaded every 6 months, I need to take regular training sessions in the app to continue to take certain types of goods... not sure what it's like in Southern Canada but in my Country we're safe as houses built pre 2020

[@nullfield6514]

this needs to go to supreme court, no compaby Eula is above our given rights

[@randomutubr222]

The piece that is missing here that most of the public doesn’t understand about the bill of rights is what is called Incorporation. When the BoR was ratified, it was only meant to apply to the federal government, not state governments. It wasn’t until the early 20th century where courts began a standard of “incorporating” provisions of the BoR against states (via their reading of the 14th amendment’s due process clause). For example, “freedom of speech” was never a thing states had to abide by until Gitlow v NY “incorporated” it against states in the 20s. And over time, more and more provisions have been incorporated. That whole business about Heller and McDondald regarding the 2nd amendment? That’s probably the one in most recent memory that is fresh in everyone’s minds: those were the cases that incorporated the 2A against states. Before that, states would have been free to make whatever policy they wanted on that topic. So here is the kicker: the 7th amendment has never been incorporated. Even the 5th amendment is only partially incorporated. That means absent a state’s constitution or a states’s law mirroring what the 7th does, they are not required to do so at present time. I’m not defending forced arbitration whatsoever and completely disagree with it. But it’s important for people to understand that the Bill of Rights doesn’t work exactly like your typical person might think. They don’t really get into these details in your high school civics class.

[@professorhaystacks6606]

As the non-majority (both dissent and concurrence) in many of those cases argued, the debate around the 14th amendment's "privileges and immunities" clause seems to pretty clearly indicate the drafters intended for it to apply amendments 1-8 (and 13, though that already included them) to the states. That courts ever considered differently (and apparently still do) rather flies in the face of it, imho.

[@Mysdia]

There may be pretty good reason the 7th won't have been incorporated. How do you challenge a Law in court that says you cannot go to court; which the court currently honors? The court will likely give the order to compel arbitration and dismiss the underlying case out the gate and not give any room to challenge the law about how the court operates.

[@RB-bd5tz]

One thing I've never understood is how a state can ignore/contradicts a federal legal document, e.g., how can a state ban guns when it is part of a country that allows them? Ridiculous; does the state supersede the country? Does a national law not apply to the whole nation?

[@randomutubr222]

@@RB-bd5tz The answer to your question is laid out in the exact document you're referring to: the constitution. You need to understand the entire constitution, not just the first 10 amendments, to understand the structure of our country.

[@RB-bd5tz]

@@randomutubr222 "Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." I'm in Canada, and that's as much research as I've done. To me, that should squash any state's mucking around with, e.g., nationally granted gun ownership rights. But maybe there's some twist to it; I know that jurisdictional jiggerypokery happens here, e.g., recently the feds have been implementing national health care plans, even though health care is explicitly a provincial responsibility. Perhaps our national constitutions, charters, etc. just don't mean anything anymore.

[@masamune..]

This will go to the supreme Court

[@chuckcrizer]

Remember when just accessing a website meant you agreed to a ridiculous licensing agreement.

[@Ginormous76]

These companies saying you can waive your 7th amendment rights is no different than them saying you can waive your 13th amendment rights. Forced arbitration should be illegal

[@keithposter5543]

Utterly disgusting. The remaining sane people in the US really need to sort this nonsense out.

[@clefsan]

The guys who are now CEOs of the big corporations were probably teenagers or young adults back when Shadowrun and the other Cyberpunk style dystopian Megacorp-ruled worlds were really popular and thought to themselves: "Once I'm on the top, these will be the blueprints for the transformation of society." 🤔😅

[@bigdubyuh7901]

I have been saying that for years about forced arbitration.

[@marineman54]

I don't use any other those apps. I go get my own food and drive myself.

[@avg__dad]

same.

[@Elemblue2]

You agreed to 45 contracts when you steped out the door. The act of moving signed 479. Your rights are gone, you are now property.

[@Mernom]

Someone needs to sue the US justice system for violating the constitution.

[@RicardoSantos-oz3uj]

The funny thing is that since the constitution is the working contract for government (the only thing that legitimizes it) Not adereing to the constitution makes the government no longer legitimate. Instead you got a gang of thugs running a protection and extortion racket.

[@pauldrice1996]

I'm not sure you can wave sombody elses rights.

[@rossmanngroup]

You can if you never had them in the first place.

[@TheFlibidy]

Apparently in th US you can. I've never heard of a case of forced arbritation in the EU though.

[@pauldrice1996]

@@rossmanngroup Rights exist independent of government, they're not some magical gift from the crown. The government can infringe upon them but they still exist.

[@clefsan]

@@TheFlibidy In the EU it's not legal to demand an arbitration agreement ahead of time, by which I mean before anything actually dispute worthy has occurred (specifics differ between countries due to being handled by national laws). When a dispute happens, both parties can voluntarily agree to have matters dealt with in arbitration (again, specifics depend on country), however due to the massive difference in bargaining power between a private individual and a large corporation, arbitration may be generally disallowed for such cases, depending on which EU-country you are looking at.

[@pauldrice1996]

@@rossmanngroup I get where you're coming from as a fellow victim of the feudal system, but if somebody other than like a legal guardian has the power to waive somebody elses rights, then it could logically follow that anybody could waive anybody elses rights, then they wouldn't need to give everybody a box to check, just have the CEO sign an agreement stating that he agrees nobody anywhere can sue the company ever. Surely at the very least if this argument was brought before a court they'd have to define some sort of limit to who can waiver whose rights.

[@TheCityWokGuy]

I came here to scream into the void in the hopes that Louis might read my comment about this case, and alas he's 10 steps ahead and already covering it. God bless you, Louis. Fighting the good fight, doing the Lord's work.

[@djtonylee]

Whatever people sign with a company is surely only company policy. I dont know how a set of commercial rules takes precedent over the constitution.

[@RicardoSantos-oz3uj]

Dumb and corrupt as fuck judges. That's how.

[@BillyBobDingledorf]

It's not a company policy or rules. It's a legally binding contract. You are correct about the constitution though. The parts of the contract that violate the constitution are void.

[@djtonylee]

@@BillyBobDingledorf yes its a contract to follow their company rules.

[@crabsoft]

It's crazy how far the conversation around consent has grown while the reality has backtracked. You can't consent without being informed. EULA are vague and broad enough that it's not possible to be informed by them -> even if you read them -> which you did not.

[@kirkanos3968]

So happy don't eat that crap food let alone pay some crazy money to bring that crap too my door.

[@morgandraegar7301]

Why are we still pretending the government cares for our best interests? WAKE UP

[@RyanMaki]

I'd like to hear Steve Lehto's thoughts on this.

[@Demi_Arts]

The fact that an actual lawyer drafted something that says that the user is acting with POA over everyone else in their life and is signing away the rights of people other than themselves is mindblowing. Like... there is no sane world in which that would be allowed to fly, right? Right?

[@CheapShotFail]

They should have read the full EULA, specifically the part that says "This agreement shall henceforth be referred to as the supreme law of the land."

[@TwinShards]

Where are my fishy!

[@NatesHomeTours]

God help the UBER or LYFT driver that hits me and causes injury. I have never used either and never will. I still have my rights. I'll make sure I put them out of business with the amount I will sue them for. I don't give 2 sh.ts if someone else in my family may have used it. I didn't sign any agreement and you will never hold me to it. Than and I don't live in state that ignores our constitution, so they will be held liable.

[@CarrotConsumer]

So strong 😮

[@Sopel997]

As a person from outside of the US I was under the impression that the problem was that there was no law to prevent this. But now I learn that there is a relevant law but it's not enforced? WTF?!

[@OteimPrincewill]

I love deregulation, let have the courts decide whether consumers deserve rights instead actual specialists in regulatory bodies MURICA MURICA MURICA🇺🇲🇺🇲🦅🦅

[@JohnDoe1999-lg7mh]

Time for each of us to have our own EULA. Someone can't speak on your behalf. They don't care and don't even if you know the don't care.

[@JimJimmington-e8i]

What you are speaking of is exactly why the courts were added to the COTUS last. Not only that, but the very things you say are a direct symptom of tyranny: When the government doesn't care, enables it and allows corporations to not only pen laws, but to police themselves. I await the Louis Rossmann phone. The Louis Rossmann desktop computers. The Louis Rossmann coffee roasters. We need a company we can trust is my point.

[@DFPercush]

There are websites that help you find local business, products that are made in America, fair trade organizations, etc. Maybe FUTO could start something like that, with their own version of the UL label that meets a certain set of criteria and is audited regularly.

[@JimJimmington-e8i]

@@DFPercush It's about about how we need companies we can trust, not companies in America. Those are easy to find. Trustworthy isn't as easy, especially with big corporations and the reach of their tentacles. For instance... look at all the smaller food businesses that companies such as Cargill, et al, have purchased over the past 8+ years or so. They still look like small brands. Cargill alone: Diamond Crystal Brands Sanderson Farms Nutrena Mills Wilbur Chocolate Company Wayne Farms I do not know about you, but I do not trust anything Cargill touches even a little bit. They are an American company. We need companies we can trust to look out for the consumer while offering exceptional service, quality and decent enough pricing. No matter what the company offers. In the tech world, I would trust Louis far more than I would trust any Geek Squad or the like.

[@PhotographerSteve]

Wow. Appreciate you bringing this to light!

[@NotoriousRawDogger]

We need the EU to protect American consumers from American companies

[@XioJN]

stuff like this makes me jealous of them.

[@justsomeonepassingby3838]

Want to come ? Unlike the US, most european countries give you citizenship for staying long enough and knowing the language

[@Stripedspot]

​@@justsomeonepassingby3838 One day maybe. if USA falls and I can't have guns anymore then sure

[@caspersmith7112]

DUDE WAS ON DUTY. Every job ive ever held the company has ALWAYS been responsible for my action BECAUSE i was REPRESENTING THEIR COMPANY

[@bat__bat]

One guy who steals food to eat is a criminal and lives in jail. 1000 guys who steal for sport are a corporation and live on yachts.

[@twrex-13]

Make EULAs and forced arbitration illegal!

[@Anonymous______________]

Welcome to the oligarchy, you must be new here.

[@NIGHTSTALKER0069]

We as the people that give away money we should make companies sign a few papers in our favour to do business with us.

[@rightwingsafetysquad9872]

I'm confused. The people who should be suing Uber weren't using Uber. Why does this EULA apply at all?

[@phlogistanjones2722]

Thank you Louis. Never Change sir. Peaceful Skies

[@r0b0coffee]

Wouldn't the 1925 Arbitration Act be in violation of the 7th amendment????

[@JohnDoe-qz1ql]

It does not. Maybe you should Read it??

[@BillyBobDingledorf]

@@JohnDoe-qz1ql Help us decode.

[@adl_bum7953]

I believe the rule is, the intersecting seams at the top of the shoulder and arm are suppose to meet at at the outer curve of the shoulder. That's how you know if the shirt fits. Just mentioning it in case people don't remember. 😇

[@adl_bum7953]

And aren't V-necks suppose to show the some chest?

[@petermuller2583]

How about we all go back to flipphones? Yeah we’ve tried the whole smartphone thing for a while, only made us dumber, sadder, poorer, literally addicted, lost us at this point a combined year of our lives at least with no benefit, makes the dystopian reality of movies come true where companies own the world and there will be only them and you (the slave), the list goes on endless.

[@hotpocketbagel]

flips are still being sold

[@Johnsbrggnfndm]

@1e0isfdkorblpg you’re probably always gonna find android on modern phones, maybe go for a mini phone? Like a jelly star

[@tachobrenner]

​@1e0isfdkorblpgSame costs as the old times

[@Elemblue2]

Its turning around. People I know who dont care about tech at all have grown to truly loathe their phones. They want flip phones.

[@IndyMiraaga]

Smartphones are a symptom, not the cause. Being able to have the power of the internet and worldwide communications in the palm of your hand has made some people complacent, but others utilize it to make their lives better or make the world a better place. With or without smartphones or the internet, corporate greed would continue to find new and unique ways to creep into our lives for the worse.

[@whodoc226]

Would love to see them try their stunts in the EU, they'd get ripped apart by the courts

[@thefilthycasual05]

Let's goooooo Louis Rossman vid instantly in my recommended, lfg!

[@thefilthycasual05]

It's completely ludicrous that Uber Eats is completely removing the ability from you, your mom, your dad, and even your dog, to sue in court. Why can't the courts overrule hidden forced arbitration in these companies TOS. This needs to happen soon or no one will have any chance in protesting or going against these companies.

[@Synamint87]

This is horrible that companies can get away with murder / harm to their consumers and can get away legally is insanity. The Constitution should be the highest level of the law, then Federal, then state, then local, then corporate. No entity should be able to legal allowed to get away with removing the rights we as Americans have in our country. This is sad that it is getting worse to live in our country.

[@sleelofwpg688]

These companies need 2nd amendmenting.

[@shivanandvp]

The problem with the use of 2nd amendment gun rights is that the bad people are more likely to use it first and win. If you are well trained in their use, have a gun for self defense. But large companies and countries swim in money. No heavily armed civilian can defeat a rich corporation or decked out soldiers with advanced weaponry

[@dustincarpenter1707]

That's been the carrot at the end of a string on the end of a stick on the end of the harness.

[@neuxell]

kickback politicians, kickback judges

[@billjames8036]

So lets see if I get this story right. The daughter used her parents phone and ordered something to be delivered by Uber. Then the parents were hit by that Uber or sometime later were hit by an Uber driver and Uber is saying because you or someone you know used your phone to use our services you can never sue Uber in a court of law for anything relating to Uber?

[@kickskii]

Yes, that is correct.

[@kickskii]

Their EULA includes that If you agree to the EULA any member of your family or relation or any 3rd party of yours with can't sue the company and must settle with a forced arbitration.

[@billjames8036]

@@kickskii Haha What about someone you met on the street would they be under your EULA agreement as well? 🙂