Thomas 🔭✨ (@thomasfuchs@hachyderm.io) 23andMe just sent out an email trying to trick customers into accepting a TOS change that will prevent you from suing them after they literally lost your genome
hachyderm.io
23andMe just sent out an email trying to trick customers into accepting a TOS change that will prevent you from suing them after they literally lost your genome ro thieves.
Do what it says in the email and email arbitrationoptout@23andme.com that you do not agree with the new terms of service and opt out of arbitration.
If you have an account with them, do this right now.
Here’s an email template for what to write: https://www.patreon.com/posts/94164861
You are viewing a single comment
How is this a trick?
They sent an email that seems standard and claims to be beneficial. I would have ignored it if I wasn't aware of the current situation
Wew, ignoring emails is a trick now?
You wouldn't read that email either and you know it.
I hate it when people act dumb like this. You know why it's an issue because of the opt out instead of the normal opt in.
That doesn't make it a trick.
It is a corporation who thinks they can just alter the deal without getting an explicit agreement by the other party.
It is definitely a trick.
Not a trick.
"We've made a change to the TOS, you have 30days to opt-out"
The TOS :
By using this service you agree to these terms :
5 paragraphs of legal gibberish.
+ We reserve the right to chop your balls off at any time.
5 more paragraphs of legal gibberish.
"If you didn't get our notice in the first place, FUCK YOU!! WE DON'T CARE!!"
What would you call it, unmitigated benevolence?
Ok now that I have that out of my system, let's see...
trick /'trik/ noun
scheme /ˈskēm/ noun
especially : a crafty or secret one
outwit /au̇t-ˈwit/ verb
What we have, in the immediate wake of a massive security breach, mind you, is an attempt to benefit the company by getting the better of the customers, writ large, by altering how disputes are handled. By taking the unusual step of requiring explicit opt-out from the new TOS within a short timeframe, they make it more likely that customers will "accept" the TOS without even realizing it and be in a worse position as a result.
That qualifies as an act intended to outwit customers.
Or, to put it another way, if they had contacted customers and asked for an opt in for the new TOS, nobody would consider that an attempt to outwit.
So, yeah, this is a trick to further fuck over customers who are already victims of the company's poor security practices.
Somebody -- preferably a goddamn judge -- really needs to start explaining to all these sociopathic corporate lawyers that...
Preferably a judge, but maybe an alien will do.
I, for one, welcome our new Alien Overl—uh, Judicial Authorities
It is a legit question. Usually you don't have to pro-actively inform anyone that you disagree with anything, TOS included. That's just what companies want you to believe since it benefits them greatly.
No idea though how things in the U.S. are handled and if there are differences in certain states. It would surprise me though if that was actually an enforcable legal principle.
I don't get why it's a trick either. That's the catchy headline right? But no word on if the changes apply into the past or it's just lawyers trying to protect themselves for next time. It's an email with new TOS and the ability to opt out.
No it's not good for users and yes it's a shitty 30 day notice in an email even I didn't read yet because I'm so irritated with them.
But reading the patron post didn't tell me how it was a trick and neither did the mastodon link. However the replies were good and helped fill me in on some details I wasn't aware of yet on the actual breach. https://hachyderm.io/@thomasfuchs/111531294441702837
Not sure why the down votes on a perfectly acceptable question.
Asking users to Opt out as a method to replace an Opt in TOS is a trick because they are hoping users won't see it. If they sent an email asking users to click a link to Opt in to the new TOS, that would be OK.
Makes sense. I didn't get it from what was posted but I understand now from the replies. Thanks.