Musk's Tesla modified contracts with customers -- without the customers' permission -- long after they were signed.

[eingemaischt@chaos.social]

@martinhowitt @dangillmor this would only be an advantage if the customer has a leasing contract.

[drangnon@hachyderm.io]

@dangillmor at least they are getting "not found" and not the Book of Enoch

[barubary@infosec.exchange]

@dangillmor

[dannyreving@mastodon.social]

@dangillmor wouldn’t buy any of these SwastiCars if it was the only carproducer on the planet.

[tknarr@mstdn.social]

@dangillmor Same way all the tech companies do, of course: having a clause in the original contract allowing them to unilaterally change it.

[stevewfolds@mastodon.world]

@eingemaischt @dangillmor
Legal documents from multiple people used to take a few days to obtain separate signatures. FedEX Overnight, etc. Not all on the same document. Now I’m just asked to click. Not even sending a pdf.

[eingemaischt@chaos.social]

@stevewfolds @dangillmor electronic signatures exist, even timestamp services which allow to make documents uneditable...

[elexia@catcatnya.com]

@dangillmor if the US wasn't incredibly corrupt this company would be sold off for parts in the near future

[elexia@catcatnya.com]

@dangillmor also several people would be going to prison

[rhymerepartee@mastodon.social]

@dangillmor

Hate to tell you this, but most contracts signed with a click to agree have clauses that allow the issuer to change terms at anytime. Banks do this all day long.

[curiously@mastodon.au]

@dangillmor arrogant, criminal behaviour. Contracts require a meeting of the minds (a common understanding of what is being agreed) how could that be possible with the terms changed without your knowledge or agreement. What was sold for $15,000?

[olle_gladso@mastodon.social]

@dangillmor Contract fraud. Clear and simple.

[bluedot@left-bank.net]

@dangillmor

It's bizarre to me that someone has to "access" the contract online. Instead of, you know, printing it out on paper and filing it somewhere safe.

[nmba@mstdn.ca]

@dangillmor
Same as russia also revising contracts so Wildberries is not liable for lost stock. Contracts and constitutions and toilet paper.

https://mezha.net/eng/bukvy/1649b480_russian_marketplaces_remove/

[aerofreak@hessen.social]

@tknarr

Nah, that's illegal in every aspect.

@dangillmor

[tknarr@mstdn.social]

@aerofreak @dangillmor Can you cite a statute saying that?

[modris@mastodon.ie]

@dangillmor This is why I always keep a printed copy of all contracts, even today.

[benhm3@mastodon.social]

@tknarr @aerofreak @dangillmor

No, they cannot. Credit card companies invented the single-sided contract modification “with notice.” The def’n of “notification” has been slid mercilessly toward obfuscation ever since Billy-boy Gates invented the EULA.

The fine-print trick has peaked.

[punissuer@universeodon.com]

@dangillmor @benroyce And they're far from the only ones. Louis Rossmann has a youtube channel where he regularly exposes how companies do semi- to illegal things to their customers, and a wiki.
https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Post-purchase_EULA_modification

[agitatra@berlin.social]

@tknarr @dangillmor I don't know about the UK or USA, but in Germany it is regarded as fraud. However when no evidence regarding the original contract exists, it might be difficult to prove.