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
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
508 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
59390 readers
2960 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
But would that hold up in court?
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.
Or to sew your mouth to another person's anus.
The cuttlefish and asparagus isn't sitting well.
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
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.
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.
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).
It would if you dont utilize the opt out during the window, all TOS' are written that way, every ody that's used them already agreed to be bound by a TOS that's subject to change, as long as they post the change and offer an opt out from that point forward, it's legal. That's why places always send those updated TOS notices.
Sadly many people that used them did so with real information. Anybody that did should download their profile, request data deletion and opt out of the terms.
Funny, it's almost like they factored in a breach to their business model. Hunh
I would be surprised if they thought that far ahead.
You'd be surprised how much of corporate America assumes similar of us, then.
Thanks for the heads up, I got that email 4 days ago and ignored it.