23andMe is updating its TOS to force binding arbitration with a limited opt-out window - Stack Diary
stackdiary.com
23andMe, the personal genomics and biotechnology company, has been trying to contain a security breach that was first disclosed on October 6th. On October 19th, 23andMe disclosed another security breach by the same hacker who had initially claimed responsibility. The hacker said he had access to more than 4 million genetic profile records this time. And on December 4th, 23andMe

This change will force its users into binding arbitration, which is a means to resolve disputes (such as a cybersecurity breach leaking your DNA data) outside of court.

  • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
    27·
    11 months ago

    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.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.worldEnglish
        82·
        11 months ago

        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.