Following a major security breach that saw millions of users’ genetic information compromised, 23andMe has updated its terms of service to make it harder to sue. Users have been receiving emails forcing them to opt out of new arbitration rules:
Please notify us within 30 days of receiving this email if you do not agree to the terms, in which case you will remain subject to the current Terms of Service. If you do not notify us within 30 days, you will be deemed to have agreed to the new terms.
We need laws addressing shit like “if you don’t say no in 30 days, we’ll take it as a yes”…
If someone do not answer, then what ? Like it could be wrong to assume a “yes” it could be wrong to assume a “no”. The assumption is that those that had something against, which they hope will be the minority, will answer while the others don’t care.
Then they are still subject to the terms they actively agreed to… It’s not like there’s no agreement if you don’t get a reply… There was an agreement before you asked for new terms, there’s an agreement still.
Then they are still subject to the terms they actively agreed to… It’s not like there’s no agreement if you don’t get a reply… There was an agreement before you asked for new terms, there’s an agreement still.
True, but somehow you need a way to know who accept the new terms and who don’t. And you need to know the point in time from which you can start to enforce the new terms. As @bob_lemon said, it could be that the default is a “no” but you need to give a time limit.
Where I live the concept of “silent consent” is used in many other occasions and does not seems to be a problem.
The default is very obviously “no”.
If someone does not agree to the new terms, they did not agree to the new terms.
I can’t send you a new set of terms for reading my comments and just assume you forfeit your firstborn child to me if you don’t answer within 10 minutes.
I’m guessing there’s some kind of terminology in the original agreement that says something like we reserve the right to change this agreement at any time and you agree to be notified of any changes by the email address on your file.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer
The default is very obviously “no”.
Fine by me, I am not arguing that the default must be “yes”, but that you need a default.
If someone does not agree to the new terms, they did not agree to the new terms.
True. Problem is that from a company point of view, it is better to handle the (supposed) few exceptions that the (supposed) overwhelming normality, that why this questions are posed this way: you simply pose the question in a way that you minimize your work.
I can’t send you a new set of terms for reading my comments and just assume you forfeit your firstborn child to me if you don’t answer within 10 minutes.
A little excessive as example, but on the other hand I can argue that if you not put a time limit on these type of changes or decisions, I can simply say today that your 10 years old wedding is invalid because I have some reason to challenge your 10 years old marriage publications. (To explain, in Italy if you want to marry you need to put an announce, usually for a couple of weeks, on a public space, normally the town hall building, to let people who has some valid reasons to challenge it)
Also, normally in Italy a change in the agreed terms has only two options: you accept the new terms (even by silent consent) or the agreement is no more valid and it is dissolved without any penalties if present, so what 23andMe is trying to do is formally correct. But a big dick move.
