• skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      In a past life, pretty plausible.

      Now that Elmo is the First Lady, this is the best TOS that’s ever been written by anyone ever. It’s perfect. It probably trumps the constitution because of how perfect it is.

    • ryper@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      According to the article, not that likely:

      Terms requiring users to sue in specific courts are usually enforceable, Vanderbilt Law School Professor Brian Fitzpatrick told Ars today. “There might be an argument that there was no consent to the new terms, but if you have to click on something at some point acknowledging you read the new terms, consent will probably be found,” he told us in an email.

      A user attempting to sue X in a different state or district probably wouldn’t get very far. “If a suit was filed in the wrong court, it would be dismissed (if filed in state court) or transferred (if filed in federal court),” Fitzpatrick said.

      • Patch@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        It seems insane to me that the US system lets you literally specify the exact judge (that you’ve already bought and paid for) as the only judge that can hear cases against you. And that the system is basically OK with this.