[losteric]

I think this legal arms race is a consequence of America's overly-litigious and profitable legal system.

These EULAs are the equivalent of warning labels on soda bottles that loosely read "Warning: Contents under pressure, don't point at your eyes"... who is that written for? We laugh and call it unnecessary, but that warning exists because there is precedent that must now be defended against.

When those ludicrous cases are widely used as a means of attack or personal enrichment, of course corporations will respond with excessive legal restrictions. Their shareholders don't want to lose money to frivolous lawsuits or be exposed to risks competitors have covered.

[hedvig]

Corporations (and their shareholders oh god) are not poor persecuted victims. Corporations govern our lives. They should not be free to do whatever they want. With the intentional erosion of most means to settle civil disputes, the court is the last refuge for the individual against a private group. The people behind tort reform (you know who they are) don't even care about the specific "frivolous" lawsuits themselves. They care about getting rid of environmental, consumer, and worker protections in general. Because they stand in the way of profits.

[adrian_mrd]

> I think this legal arms race is a consequence of America's overly-litigious and profitable legal system.

I would concur with this. From the software firm's perspective, there is less risk in being overly cautious (i.e. EULAs) than to have less restrictive and open rights.

Maybe there is a need for a standard common-law contract that provides a set of 8-10 basics and then any companies have to specifically spell out what is different in their personal EULA - and the user can either accept or reject those additional terms? A true accept or reject, that is, and not just two buttons ;)

But then why are EULAs allowed in countries that are far less litigious?

Are other countries compelled to adopt the EULA for their citizens (convenient!), lobbied or pressured via free- or other trade agreements with the USA (soft/smart lobbying!), or are we, as users to blame for pressing 'accept' without any lobbying efforts of our own?

[pjmlp]

In most European countries EULAs are only valid if you are given the opportunity to read it before buying the product.

It is not legally binding to sign for something after having paid for it.

Now if the box states somewhere a kind of EULA introduction, with indication where to read the full version, then it is another matter.

[fjsolwmv]

Considering the many YouTube videos of exploding bottles, the warning is for the 10000 people a day learning something for the first time. What's wrong with using literacy to help people learn from the miatskes of others?

[kikoreis]

Users don't read. We have warnings in my state next to elevators that read "Ensure elevator is at this floor before entering". This is literally accurate but practically ludicrous.

The solution to problems of this nature is almost always redesign.

[quickben]

But users sue.

[thrill]

And juries award.

[thomasfedb]

Do they actually write that on carbonated drinks in USA? That's brilliant.

[DanBC]

A warning appears on some UK labels. Pepsi Max has "pressurised container, please open slowly and handle with care" on the label.

[mikeash]

There’s a bag of almonds in my pantry that literally says “Contains almonds” on it in the fine print.

[akiselev]

That's due to allergen labelling regulations. Since a lot of stuff can contain artificial almond extract or other substitutes when labeled as almond-based or flavored, the regulations don't carve out any exceptions, even when the allergen literally is the product.

[JoeAltmaier]

And cooking spray sometimes says "Fat free!" because an average 'serving' contains < 10 calories of fat. Yet its 100% fat. A spray can of fat.

[mikeash]

Similarly, Tic Tacs are listed as containing 0 grams of sugar, despite being made of 94.5% sugar.

[thomasfedb]

That being legal is insane. That has to be misleading labelling.

[johncalvinyoung]

Allergen labelling is a huge blessing to anyone with serious allergies. Yes, labeling A Package of Allergens with 'Contains Allergen' might feel weird, but it's critical for non-obvious ingredients and contaminants.

[mikeash]

I don’t quite get your point. It’s bizarre and nonsensical in this case, but really useful in other cases, so...? I don’t know how that sentence ends.

[eesmith]

So for consistency's sake it's better to just always list allergens, rather than have the regulations say "except when it's bizarre and nonsensical." Otherwise, someone has to decide where that boundary is.

[mikeash]

I don’t think it’s really that hard to draw the line. You can still err heavily on the side of safety while not requiring a bag of nuts to warn about the nuts it contains. But our legal system doesn’t go for that sort of nuance.

[lbriner]

Haven't you seen the McDonalds coffee in the UK?

"Warning, contents may be hot"

The "may" always makes me chuckle.

[fjsolwmv]

It's funny because you forget that coffee can eventually cool.

[nate_meurer]

No, I think it's a bit humorous because coffee is and always has been widely known and accepted to be served piping hot, often near boiling. Same with tea and mate. If you order a pot of tea from any decent shop or restaurant, it will be served full of freshly boiled water. The closer to boiling the better. Do you think all teapots should have big warnings enameled on their sides as well? Should all knives have "WARNING: SHARP" engraved on the blades?

[gaius]

They were sued in the US by some woman who scalded herself when she spilled McDonalds coffee on herself. She was given millions.

[fjsolwmv]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest...

That woman burned the skin off her genatalia when McDonald's served a far too hot coffee. After they refused to pay a small amount to cure her injuries (remember, no socialized health care in USA), she sued. She offered to settle, again for a small amount to cover expenses, and McDonald's refused again

McDonald's launched a massive PR campaign to mock her in order to pollute public sentiment in favor of corporations over victims, so thejury awarded $2.7 millions in punitive damages to defend the public against McDonald's brazen attack on himan society. The Judge lowered the award to $640K; and McDonald's appealed, refusing for the third time. They eventually settled for a confidential amount.

[CtrlAltT5wpm]

To add context, the original awarded amount was calculated to be the revenue of a single day of coffee sales for McDonald's. Stella Liebeck had originally sued for ~$50,000, to cover the cost of her medical bills, which McDonald's refused to do. Additionally, the award was calculated at that amount as a punitive measure, because McDonald's had received hundreds of complaints from customers of the coffee being too hot, which it summarily ignored. The coffee had been a problem; McDonald's just didn't care.

Unfortunately, the lawsuit, and the seemingly 'ridiculous-at-first-glance' nature of the headlines surrounding it, was used by several companies to push for specific tort reforms, which were mostly to the detriment of the average public.

There's more to this than "Dumbass sues company because hot coffee was hot".

Hot Coffee https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1445203/

[nate_meurer]

McDonalds had received a few hundred complaints out of 10 billion cups of coffee served. The temperature of the coffee was not a problem; it was, and still is, the temperature at which all good coffee shops and restaurants serve coffee, including McDonalds. If you go get coffee at McDonalds (or Starbucks or pretty much anywhere else) it will be served to you at around 80 deg C, and sometimes even higher. This temperature is recommended by professional coffee associations [1], and it's the temperature at which any decent coffee machines holds your coffee.

It sucks that Stella Liebeck was injured. Nobody deserves that. But she was burned because she squeezed a cup of hot coffee between her legs while she messed with the lid. This is, by any reasonable criteria, an abuse of the product, and protecting a few people from such foolish choices would mean depriving everyone else of decent coffee. Fortunately that hasn't happened yet.

1 - https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee

[nate_meurer]

No, the coffee was not far too hot. It was served within the temperature range that was, and still is, recommended by professional coffee associations like the NCA [1]. Most good coffee establishments serve coffee in the range of 160 degrees F (71.1 degrees C) and 185 degrees F (85 degrees C). Yes, all temperatures in that range present a burn hazard. I have trouble believing that a reasonable person would assume it's safe to put a newly-served cup of hot coffee between their legs and take the lid off, which is what poor Stella did.

1 - https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee

[JoeAltmaier]

Nobody like to remember that folks went there because the coffee was extra hot. She didn't get burned because McD's served hot coffee - she'd been drinking that for years? She got burned because just as she took the top off to put in sugar, her grandson gunned the motor and spilled it.

So who's 'fault' is all this? In law you can sue for money from anybody even remotely connected with an injury. So she chose McD's instead of her grandson - no surprise. But was it right?

[awalton]

> So who's 'fault' is all this?

Uh, it was McDonald's fault, as proven by the several legal battles this woman won. This continuous questioning of settled arguments is absurd. They served the woman boiling hot coffee - it's simply not drinkable or safe to handle at that temperature (and shouldn't even have been brewed over 180...)

[mcguire]

"her grandson gunned the motor and spilled it."

Source? Everything I have read said the car was parked.

[WalterSear]

A warning is not a contract.

[mcny]

I anal but it might be worth looking into making EULA null and void. But first (sorry for sounding like a broken record), we must repeal the cfaa.

[cylinder]

Make losing plaintiffs pay the defendant's attorney's fees and costs, it changes everything

[howard941]

It sure does change everything, including the locks to the courthouse doors.