
Clause in free WiFi contract obliges thousands to clean music festival toilets - cm2187
https://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/3013892/clause-in-free-wifi-contract-obliges-thousands-to-spend-1-000-hours-cleaning-music-festival-toilets
======
Spivak
I think their takeaway is wrong. The takeaway is that we should do away with
ToS and ToU contracts. This is already partially the case since no court would
ever enforce this part of the contract so you can more or less safely ignore
it.

~~~
thephyber
> This is already partially the case since no court would ever enforce this
> part of the contract so you can more or less safely ignore it.

At least in US law, that doesn't necessarily invalidate anything else in a
contract. Also, the enforceability of any clause in a contract is subject to
local laws, jurisprudence, and whether the plaintiff can make a reasonable
argument for why precedence might no longer apply.

Additionally, everything is in question when there is a binding arbitration
clause. The ToS company usually pays the arbitrator (far more than any one
defendant) and the arbitrator may not be bound by local laws to decide if a
clause is enforceable or not. Also, you may have no legal civil recourse if an
arbitrator judges that a clause is enforceable and you suspect it isn't.

I don't know if I agree that "we should do away with ToS and ToU contracts",
but I think they should be trimmed back from what they are now. And I
certainly don't think it's "more or less safe to ignore" a clause unless you
discuss with _your_ attorney.

IANAL

