Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

turkeyburpin t1_j8yj6dg wrote

They'll run this all the way up to SCOTUS if they have to. There is no way any of these companies are going to allow a "contract" to be deemed unenforceable by a judge and not fight it tooth and nail.

104

zoobrix t1_j8zeofd wrote

A contract is not allowed to violate the law but companies have you sign illegal contracts all the time, they are counting on you not calling them on it.

If you read the article it just said the type of contract was a "clickwrap" and that the judge said it was "unenforceable" but it never says for what reason. I would wager the contract had an illegal clause in it and that's what the judge took issue with, not that it was a click to agree style contract in of itself. For instance if the contract essentially says we can charge you for a service we never provide that could violate consumer protection laws or just be considered outright fraud.

57

the_simurgh t1_j8zfxw2 wrote

technically the never never provided the internet so there was no contract

12

Dauoa_Static t1_j8ynt49 wrote

Well then either this will get overturned, or these contracts will need to be altered in the future, hopefully giving the ISP's more accountability for the quality of their services.

11