• thefartographer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      1 year ago

      Previous rulings such as Rubber v Glue and Face v Hand make this look like a really strong strategy

      • kalkulat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Desperate strategy they’re hoping will fool some of the people some of the time.

        Trusting complete strangers with highly personal information is never a good idea. Even if they promise to take good care of it, before or after they’ve already got your money.

    • butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Not sure about other states, but in my state you can agree to mandatory arbitration for past incidents as long as they don’t do reeeeeally egregious behavior like, eg, slipping a notice into your normal bills and having you “agree” by not objecting within X days.

    • be_gt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Olnly if you opt out of the new terms, at least in us.IANAL of course

      • aname@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        1 year ago

        In much of Europe, at least in EU, ToS cannot take away legal rights.

      • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        in order for a ToS to be legally enforcable, the user has to see it. A user cannot give consent on an agreement they did not see, therefor in court it would be 23andMes job to verify that the user was indeed aware of the ToS and acted accordingly. they could not say everyone ops in and defend themselves that way by default because not everyone that was forcibly opted in gave an agreement to the new ToS.