• lhx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lawyer here: this isn’t necessarily correct and in America it’s state dependent. There are absolutely parts of the law you can waive, including negligence of a party which is likely your bungee jumping scenario with the rope snapping.

    • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are T&Cs retroactive? I would think any new T&Cs could only apply from that point forward, not that they could retroactively absolve themselves of liability or how you could pursue it.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        IANAL and I don’t claim to fully understand the case, but it looks to me like the reason they might be able to get away with it is that they’re not trying to change anyone’s rights or obligations; they are “merely” changing the mechanism by which disputes are to be resolved. It is of course a pure coincidence that the new mechanism makes it a lot harder to find 23andMe liable for any infractions.

        • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I lean the other way.

          I think it would be a pretty solid case to argue that the change to the TOS, considering the timing and combined with the breach, would be outrageously unreasonable enough to invalidate the “meeting of the minds” requirement.