undefined | Better HN

0 pointsidontpost3y ago0 comments

> It is in their terms of service that what they are doing is legal

I don't know what you're trying to say, but that sentence is complete nonsense.

You can't make an illegal action legal by putting it in a contract.

0 comments

There isn't any precedent that confusing UX is illegal, is there? If a user enables "interested in NYC" when they mean "browsing from NYC" is a judge going to get involved?

solarmist3y ago

There absolutely is. Fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment.

If they are purposely making it difficult to understand and choose options then that can be a form of fraud.

drc500free3y ago

Is there any precedent of someone proving fraudulent concealment based on a confusing UX?

1 more reply

Closi3y ago

You can sign away certain rights or accept certain terms that would otherwise open avenues for a legal claim though, which is effectively what OP means I think.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsidontpost3y ago0 comments

> It is in their terms of service that what they are doing is legal

I don't know what you're trying to say, but that sentence is complete nonsense.

You can't make an illegal action legal by putting it in a contract.

0 comments

drc500free3y ago

There isn't any precedent that confusing UX is illegal, is there? If a user enables "interested in NYC" when they mean "browsing from NYC" is a judge going to get involved?

solarmist3y ago

There absolutely is. Fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment.

If they are purposely making it difficult to understand and choose options then that can be a form of fraud.

drc500free3y ago

Is there any precedent of someone proving fraudulent concealment based on a confusing UX?

1 more reply

Closi3y ago

You can sign away certain rights or accept certain terms that would otherwise open avenues for a legal claim though, which is effectively what OP means I think.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse