[TheCoelacanth]

Is there any precedent for an EULA like that being enforced? Typically for a contract to be valid, acceptance has to be actively communicated. You can't be bound by a contract simply by someone saying that you have accepted it if you do something that you might have done normally.

[dahart]

> Is there any precedent for an EULA like that being enforced?

I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but Wikipedia says "sometimes".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#E...

> Typically for a contract to be valid, acceptance has to be actively communicated. You can't be bound by a contract simply by someone saying that you have accepted

Again, not a lawyer, but I imagine that use of a service could legally constitute your active end of the communication. You're right, you can't be bound just because someone says, but when you use a service you've gone one step past.

Honestly, I think the EULA is more of a CYA for them than a contract, in practice. But it does establish the potential legality for two things: 1- that this is a licensed service, and 2- that they can refuse service to anyone they want for reasons of business interest.

[staticautomatic]

I just had a conversation with my own company's lawyers about this recently. Their assessment was that the spectrum from something like what LinkedIn is doing to something like a notarized paper document with a wet signature is a trade-off between ease/simplicity and enforceability.

These kinds of agreement ostensibly are enforceable, but harder to enforce.