If you're anything like us here at the PactSafe offices, you're probably spending a few minutes over lunch this week wandering around the streets outside your office trying to catch Pokemon. If you're not, well don't worry -- the guilt, shame, and embarassment of walking around as a grown adult playing an adaptation of a late-90s children's game wears off quickly. There's still plenty of time for you to catch up, reach Level 5, and head over to the nearest Pokemon Gym in your neighborhood to do battle.
You may remember a few months back when we asked you to see which social media network owned your soul. It is important to understand what you have agreed to on websites with differing standards when it comes to your information, privacy, and user-agreements.
While online privacy policies waver from readable to ridiculous, one sought-after company is doing its best to lead the industry with integrity. Get ready for all of the consumer-feels as we break down what Apple is up to.
For Guardian reporter Alex Hern, thinking about all the small print on the Internet made him want to die... so he took seven days to read 146,000 words of various companies’ Terms of Service, and the result? It made him want to die even more.
A recent case in Wisconsin Federal Court illustrates perfectly the importance of properly tracking and managing website legal agreements.
One of the most prominent cases that relates to the enforceability of a browsewrap agreement is the Zappos.com, Inc. customer data security breach case. The Zappos case resulted from hackers who breached the Zappos.com security and were able to the access the personal information of the sites customers who had completed purchases from the website. The security breach exposed names, addresses, and phone numbers of the customers. The customers of Zappos.com then brought a class action lawsuit for damages that were a result from the data breach.
Over the past week, General Mills, one of the largest food companies in the US, made a controversial update to its website legal terms that purported to prevent its consumers from suing it (rather requiring them to submit disputes via "informal negotiation" or arbitration). After the NY Times published a series of articles about the change, General Mills pulled the new terms due to concerns and misunderstandings expressed by many consumers. The new website legal terms posted by General Mills supposedly were intended to apply to consumers downloading coupons, “joining its online communities,” participating in sweepstakes and other promotions, and interacting with General Mills in a variety of other ways online. General Mills employed a pop-up box on its home page, stating that use of the site would “require all disputes related to the purchase or use of any General Mills product or service to be resolved through binding arbitration.” [FYI - Companies like to require arbitration as a means for settling disputes as a means of preventing class action lawsuits]