Oath Waives Users' Lawsuit Rights, Will Share 'Individually Identifiable' Data With Third-Parties

[Lucian Armasu]

Oath's new privacy policy and Terms of Service will waive users' rights to launch class action lawsuits against the company, giving users little choice in the matter. The company will also share users' data with over 100 third-parties.

Oath Waives Users' Lawsuit Rights, Will Share 'Individually Identifiable' Data With Third-Parties : Read more

 

[compprob237]

Well, wasn't using that account much anyway. Time to delete it.

 

[AnimeMania]

I think this might include every user that gets internet from AT&T.

 

[mrmez]

It's hilarious to every other country that in the USA a company can have a legally binding agreement where you're not allowed to sue them.

 

[ravewulf]

That type of agreement unfortunately seems to be pretty common these days and should really be declared illegal/unconstitutional.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Wait .. You are telling me that in the land of "free", you can NOT sue a company when (not if) they screw you over illegally and break privacy laws?

Bravo! Murica.

 

[Co BIY]

Is there a place where a consumer can go and get a side by side comparison of email accounts for privacy purposes.

I do think that if privacy is a requirement then a free service is basically ruled out.

 

[grimfox]

@THEOTHERONE You can still sue them but only for small claims, which depending on the area has different caps usually less than $1000. And you have to present your case on your own vs their representative which will likely have a law degree. Good luck trying to collect any evidence from "Oath" to prove your claim.

 

[caduzalak]

This "Oath" missed April 1 with 25 days. better timing next time guys.

 

[Giroro]

@theotherone
"you can NOT sue a company when (not if) they screw you over..."
Not if you clicked a checkbox one time back in the 90's as a minor, you can't.

"...and break privacy laws?"
Privacy laws? What privacy laws?

 

[sykozis]

That type of agreement unfortunately seems to be pretty common these days and should really be declared illegal/unconstitutional.

AT&T tried to do the same thing a few years back. The courts ruled against AT&T when it was challenged.

 

[Karadjgne]

Waiving your rights to class action lawsuits is one thing. Giving up rights under Invasion of Privacy laws is another beast entirely.

For Whom the Bell Tolls.... Well it Tolls for Verizon, Oath, Yahoo etc soon as the public in general starts tweeting and twittering...

 

[Olle P]

I wonder what would happen to a company that employ this "no class action" rule if they did something wrong and some 10,000 users got their act together and sent in one shipment to the court identical law suits from each and every one of them, clearly stating that a) all claims are identical exept for identity of plaintiff, and b) handling of the complaints as individual cases is what the defendant forced them to do.

In my view that would constitute some sort of obstruction of court or justice...

 

[Karadjgne]

That's happened, sorta. Seen a dude get his public defender to schedule every case he could get his hands on, from one particular parole officer, all on the same day. Judge was so irritated by 7pm he sacked her, demoted her supervisor and instituted a broad investigation into why he had to sit there all day because of her. 5 years later, the supervisor finally finished re-writing the handbook, which he threw out and made her write it again. She quit.

I'd consider any judge faced with 10k individual lawsuits, all claiming the same thing, is gonna be excessively irritated over this.

 

[grimfox]

If one lawyer wins a case against Oath, you can bet there will be a lot of lawyers out there that will jump on any case they can get and use that as precedent. It would be an easy win.

HOWEVER!

Small claims courts usually do NOT allow secondary representation, IE a lawyer. And any arbitration would also not allow a lawyer per the TOS.