TikTok requires users to “forever waive” rights to sue over past harms
TikTok requires users to “forever waive” rights to sue over past harms
TikTok may be seeking to avoid increasingly high costs of mass arbitration.
You're viewing a single thread.
So these things keep appearing in contracts but everyone seems to say they're totally unenforceable so... Why do they keep appearing in contracts?
If it's not illegal to add, the only risk is bad press coverage, and it might prevent someone from suing in the first place because they don't know their rights.
Except in several states if any of the contract is invalid it all is.
In the United States where TikTok is based, contracts can include "severability clauses" that state that in the event any part of the contract is deemed unenforceable, the other parts are still good
Uhhh tiktok is based in China
it's owned by a Chinese company, but TikTok itself is based in the US
Wasn't there a big hoohar about that a couple of years ago which meant they had to move?
Corporate:'I'm sorry you were looking for an issue with tik tok. the problem is. tik tok is not the issue.'
due to dividends untold tik tok just money guns politicians in the cooter till they spazzin...
What
Wasn't there a big hoohar about that a couple of years ago which meant they had to move?
My Comment In gest " we investigated ourselves and found there to be nothing wrong, also we gave money to policy makers."
did you forget what you typed above? was my comment so far left field?
I have no idea what the "due to..." sentence means.
due to dividend untold...due to money with unlimited wallet depth.
that better?
That’s not a common thing in American contracts. Severability clauses take care of that.
Is that true? I can't find any source for it, except very specific cases where the language and contents of the contract matter.
IANAL; However Usually the contracts have a severability clause, meaning even if some parts of that contract are null and void the rest of it stands minus the parts that are illegal. Does that mean those clauses are also null and void depending on locality? Again IANAL, but I believe it's pretty settled contract law at least in the US.
There's zero chance that any user agreements ever have those.
Djtecha seemed to be saying there is some blanket rule in some states.
It's a pretty common clause in most contracts, so I'm not sure why you're so confident that they aren't used in EULAs
Why in the world would they be included in EULAs
Precisely for this reason?
...so that they can screw themselves over? This doesn't make any sense.
I...misread the previous message. Makes sense.
So that the entire contract isn't void if one provision is struck down.
We need legislation to fix this. Something like "should a contract drafted by a lawyer include clauses that they knew or should have known to be unenforceable or void, the entire contract shall be unenforceable by the drafting party"
Because sooner or later, some judge will decide it is enforceable.
Plus it serves as a deterrent for some from even filing a suit with the risk of it getting thrown out and them out thousands of dollars in legal fees.
to cover their asses. It's like seizure warnings on video games. it should go without saying but. sadly...it has to be said. if a case does arise, judges usually create a 'quasi' contract that's usually modified to be fairer for both parties...usually...😬
I'm guessing this might be a pre-emptive response to all the Snapchat lawsuits. Basically, parents are suing Snapchat because their kids talked to drug dealers using it.
Because enough people will read it without consulting a lawyer and never do so that pays for itself before the inks dry.