This change will force its users into binding arbitration, which is a means to resolve disputes (such as a cybersecurity breach leaking your DNA data) outside of court.

  • Humanius
    link
    English
    998 months ago

    I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think that retroactively applies to things that happened before the ToS got updated.

    So 23andMe would still be open to lawsuits for the previous breach

    • be_excellent_to_each_other
      link
      fedilink
      27
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I’d almost guarantee the original TOS had a line like “we can change the TOS at any time.”

      Having said that, I also thought I’d seen quite some time ago that burying undesirable restrictions in the fine print of a TOS doesn’t help companies who fuck up as much as they hope it will in court because it’s been acknowledged that so few people thoroughly read them.

      IIRC they scare people into thinking they have signed away legal rights more than they actually have. I could be wrong, but that’s my recollection.

      Edit: Just a quick search - https://www.rocketlawyer.com/family-and-personal/personal-finance/consumer-protection/legal-guide/your-rights-if-a-business-changes-its-terms-of-service

      Consumer protection laws

      Federal law and many state laws protect consumers from a wide range of deceptive, fraudulent, or unfair business practices. As mentioned earlier, businesses can enforce their TOS even if their users did not read them in their entirety, but only if the terms are reasonable and fair. Hiding unusual terms deep in the fine print of the TOS could be considered deceptive.

        • themeatbridge
          link
          English
          68 months ago

          That part doesn’t matter as much. They have a legal department and a budget for outside council. You’re just some schmuck who’s been victimized. You want to fight them in court, it’s going to require thousands of dollars just to get through the binding arbitration for you to challenge it, costing more money and more time.

          The point is not to win in court, but to stall and obstruct.

          • SatansMaggotyCumFart
            link
            English
            18 months ago

            Or to sew your mouth to another person’s anus.

            The cuttlefish and asparagus isn’t sitting well.

    • JJROKCZ
      link
      English
      168 months ago

      Maybe not but you’ll undoubtedly have to go to court to argue that (paying legal cost the whole time) before you can then start the case about gross negligence (and pay more for)

      It’s all designed to ensure you can’t afford to sue them

      • @Telodzrum
        link
        English
        48 months ago

        No, you’d just have to defend against a motion to dismiss under the terms of this agreement as part of the larger action. It’s a nominally increased amount of work and would not significantly increase the cost of litigation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      168 months ago

      Yes, but every other “oopsies” that will happen to your DNA Data will cost them a “We’re so Sorry”-Card and a Hershey’s Kiss per Customer. And there will be oopsies in the future. It was a way to voluntary get people to submit their DNA Data with the Bogus claim to “find out where your came from”. But the value for the medicine (read: Pharma industry) is much much bigger. My Sister submitted her DNA to them. They now know the genetic probability of illnesses of my whole Family-Tree including mine and everyone else in the Family up and down. And not only they know, but everyone who is using the “leaked” Data. Thank you Sister.

      • clif
        link
        English
        78 months ago

        Note: limit of 500 “sorry” cards and 75 kisses for the entire class action suit. You may also opt to receive a free “DNA protection plan” from the same company that fucked everything up in the first place or 75 cents discount on future products (your code expires in 45 minutes).

    • @agent_flounder
      link
      English
      68 months ago

      I would be surprised if they thought that far ahead.