Can an 8-year-old waive their rights to sue a company by clicking a box?
That’s the stance of Roblox, an online gaming platform that bills itself as a digital playground.
The argument comes as the $41-billion company is embroiled in a lawsuit with the family of a Northern Kentucky child whose death by suicide, her mother says, is related to use of the platform.
Children aren’t legally allowed to enter into contracts. How are their lawyers this stupid? Are they just getting their arguments from chatbots?
Likely a mix of all 3 things. (Both stupid lawyers using chatbots and a special extra helping of techbro leadership that is hellbent on “challenging the paradigm” or some other shit)
any mention of “waiving your rights” should always automatically be null, no matter who it concerns. by definition it places the corporation above the law. Might as well let corporations authorize people to kill, steal and do other crimes if that is allowed.
we need global capital punishment for corporations
You can’t sign any rights away in the EU.
It’s great because I know my rights here and I can just accept any terms knowing they can’t fuck me over no matter what I accept.
Not a lawyer, but if i hire someone to kill someone and put that in writing, I can’t sue that person for not doing his job because the contract has no legal value. Not sure on the details, but if i understand correctly a contract between two people cannot cover things that are outside the law. Meaning the law of contracts (like TOS) is inferior to the law of killing people. Seems like this is not true for America, but here i’ve heard of consumers winning lawsuits based on this principle.
We do need global punishment for corporations, but it would not be the only solution: corporation have to abide to local laws.
if they cant be punished globally, they cant be made to obey local laws. Kind of like if you could do crimes in one country and just leave after heat gets too bad. For us, interpol will go after you.
For individuals it is a lot easier to go to another country to evade punishment. If a company does that they also can’t produce or sell there themselves and will have to find another company to act as an intermediary. Also, in this case it is about a dragging someone to court. It is hard to take a us software company to court, but it does happen. For example, a Dutch organisation took Meta to court for not allowing users to receive a feed with only the accounts they follow. They won that case. A celeb had his identity used by fraudsters who used Google Ads to trick people into buying certain crypto, he won the case. Yes companies get away with a lot, but they are ‘made to obey local laws’ from time to time.
they dont get fines that matter though, otherwise they wouldnt act like they are just cost of doing business. fine for breaking law for big corporation should be big they are actually scared of getting fined.
And company being able to to evade punishment via intermediary is not right either. breaking the law should mean they get left behind by competitors
100% agree
If it can be waived, then it’s a temporary privilege, not a right
It depends on the judge. Click-wrapped ToS, EULAs and privacy policies are a known dark pattern:
They’re longer than Shakespearean plays.
They’re difficult to read even at a college level.
They’re often presented in a tiny window with difficult controls.
They’re presented suddenly and mid process, often as part of an already lengthy string of steps. Often the user is eager to just move on.Some judges have recognized this and do not see click-wrapped contracts as binding, especially when the person clicking them can be a child, or a cat, or a computer glitch.
But then a lot of judges were appointed through a willful organized effort to put pro-business judges on the bench, and will rule in the favor of companies over individuals regardless of the circumstances.
And some, like the majority of SCOTUS judges will literally make stuff up so they can legislate from the bench as they’ve been
paidbribed to do.you mean like Uncle Clarence?
Minors can’t waive rights. Or, in theory they can’t waive rights because they don’t have capacity. That’s my understanding
In my country nobody can waive rights, by default no contract is able to take any rights from you
I’m no expert, but my Business Law professors were absolutely adamant about the fact that a minor can never execute a legal agreement and there are no exceptions.
Even if the parent leaves a contract out with a stamped envelope and tells their kid to sign it and mail it off, the contract is null and void. If my professors were correct and things haven’t changed, I can’t imagine a child can waive their (or their parents) rights by clicking a checkbox either.
In Australia, when a minor signs a contract, it’s only legally binding on the other (adult) party. That is, if I were 14 and signed a contract I can force the other party to meet their obligations under the contract but I cannot be forced to meet my own obligations. The contract favours the minor in that way so that they are protected from anything predatory while still able to engage in and benefit from contracts. I think that’s the best approach.
I’m confused, even if the girl could waive her rights and that is legally a valid argument - she is not the one who’s excersizing her right to sue the company right? Does that right extend beyond death or would such a contract also extend to others who have not signed anything?
Also what the fuck, their stance is they can’t be sued, instead of they’re not guilty. I mean i’m not guilty and the parents can’t sue me, but if they wanted to my defense would surely be that i had nothing to do with it - not that they can’t sue me.
The fast talking lawyers were hoping no one would notice what you just pointed out.
Actually they can sue you. Anyone can sue anyone else over anything. It’s whether the lawsuit or not has any merits and will be carried on is what decides that. If you have a lot of money and want to fuck over a poor person sue them for nothing. The poors still have to spend all their money defending themselves against nothing or else they’re in contempt of court and you get the satisfaction of destroying them financially forever. No crime, but the poors still get punished.
Over here:
A) you have a legal right to legal representation, there is a social justice system where lawyers work for a set price.
B) if you bring something to court, you have to pay a few, also if the case gets dismissed.
C) Not bringing a lawyer does not automatically mean someone is in contempt of court.And i believe there is some law here where you got be charged for a crime if you harras people, i think this would be triggered after your third or fourth frivolous suit.
Poor people are fucked over all the time, but over here not because they’re sued by someone with money for no reason.
fuck roblox
Roblox really seems to be the end boss of evil game companies. The competition is certainly steep but they never cease to amaze me with how low they‘re willing to go for a few bucks more.
Well not shocking as this is the same company that is cool with child gambling, child “dating” and well a lot of terrible child things.
To add some important context:
Seitz is suing the company, along with two others, for Audree’s death, which occurred one week after her 13th birthday.
and the mom is also suing Discord and TikTok.
Relevant yes, but isn’t the age at which she signed the ‘contract’ even more relevant? Crazy young age to end your life though. Can’t imagine what that’s like.
isn’t the age at which she signed the ‘contract’ even more relevant?
It’s everything – or it used to be, before the current administration (US) decided to turn two and a half centuries of law into Calvinball.
A minor literally can’t do this in the USA. You scumbags are Fucked.
Archive link https://archive.ph/lbe7N
Companies like this spend a lot of money on lawyers writing up ‘terms and conditions’ for the sole reason of shielding them from legal liability and the ability to put those protections in place just from the user selecting a checkbox. But my fear is that this case will just be another example used in the argument for age verification, and identification, online.
As a panel of expert witnesses, bring in more 8-year-olds to demonstrate how to play Roblox. Add a mandatory checkbox that includes an attestation stating that the company is criminally liable and a requirement that these children must kick the entire C-suite to death.
Let’s see how binding check boxes still are, and to what degree minors are expected to process and follow their commitments.
Only in AmeriKa. What about the parents?
I saw the article on Reddit, the kid bypassed the Parent Locks, or the more likely scenario is that the ‘kid zone’ of Roblox has plenty of unhinged weirdoes thst know how to trespass into the kid zone.
The poor kid was manipulated into offing herself.
