[kevin_b_er]

Simple, you just add this to clickwrap agreement:

The Parties mutually agree that any and all disputes arising from or relating to this Agreement, including the interpretation or application of this Agreement will be submitted exclusively to final and binding arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. The arbitration will be conducted the state of Delaware or such other location as the Parties may agree, by a single arbitrator in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Delaware.

Boom. No more pesky California law.

[wahern]

Setting aside potential flaws in your thesis, theoretically the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) can be circumvented by making the state the real party in interest but permitting a victim to sue and recover on behalf of the state. Because the state wouldn't be a party to any contract (and also because it's a state), the FAA wouldn't apply.

California does this for labor violations through it's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): https://www.dir.ca.gov/Private-Attorneys-General-Act/Private...

Glancing at the Wikipedia page for CCPA, it's possible that the CCPA is structured similarly--"Companies ... can be ordered in civil class action lawsuits ... subject to an option of the California Attorney General's Office to prosecute the company instead of allowing civil suits to be brought against it."

That said, I don't think California's PAGA has ever been tested vis-a-vis the FAA in the Supreme Court because it was only recently that they decided to strictly apply the FAA to employment contracts.

[neuland]

Section 1798.192 covers that:

    Any provision of a contract or agreement of any kind that purports to waive or limit in any way a consumer’s rights under this title, including, but not limited to, any right to a remedy or means of enforcement, shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable

Edit: I suppose that I should say that I'm not a lawyer. This isn't legal advice. And it's completely possible that I have misunderstood this section of the law.

[carbocation]

I dislike how the minute someone mentions a legal hack, the responses are "oh, are you a lawyer?"

Why not consider this reply on its merits?

[jordigh]

Because it is super-risky to consider these things on their own merits if you are not the kind of person who regularly interacts with judges and juries. Laws are something that are applied within a particular kind of, ah, culture. You have to be familiar with the body of work of that culture and how they will likely interpret the law. Trying to interpret laws in ignorance of that culture is likely to lead to interpretations contrary to those with the power to enforce the laws, and land you in a lot of trouble.

In other words, laws aren't code or mathematics. They're not pure exercises of abstract thought to be considered in isolation. Trying to treat them that way is going to lead to trouble.

[carbocation]

Does everyone downvote all medical speculation in the numerous health threads on this site?

No.

It's fine for people to speculate about medical ideas, legal ideas, etc. Especially on a forum like this where there is no pretense that people are offering genuine legal advice.

[skybrian]

Or maybe we should express less confidence in our assertions about medicine?

After all, most of the time, people are writing about things they don't know all that much about.

[carbocation]

To be honest, one or the other should be the case.

Either wild speculation on medicine and law should be fine (this is my position).

Or, people should fear medical speculation as much as they do legal speculation (I think this is the more pathetic option).

[ChrisSD]

"Legal hacks" are rarely, if ever, as clever as their proponents think. Scepticism is natural and warranted.

Judges aren't complete morons and will take a dim view of "hacks". There could be loopholes somewhere but you'd need a lawyer to spot them.

[jordigh]

One of the most famous "legal hacks", Richard Stallman's copyleft, had to be rewritten by a lawyer. rms wrote GPLv1 by himself and you should never use it. GPLv2 is the version that was actually vetted by a lawyer.

A similar thing happened with Perl's Artistic License. Its version 2 is basically also a lawyer-approved rewrite.

In other words, hackers, don't try this at home. There are professionals who can do this for you.

[nickpeterson]

I find it somewhat sad that law is basically a guild where arcane language is used to gatekeep what should be a much more straightforward exercise.

[Karrot_Kream]

It's not. It's the equivalent of saying "I can do this better" and producing unreliably, buggy code. Sure you can, but a more experienced professional can point out all the corner cases you missed.

[sbov]

Then when it fails, you blame the programming language rather than your experience in programming.

[jancsika]

I find it somewhat sad that programming is basically a guild where arcane language is used to gatekeep what should be a much more straightforward exercise.

[rhacker]

Hahaha, actually at some point in the future, I suspect 25 years or so, our programming guild will likely have taken over and replace the legal guild.

[heavenlyblue]

I mean, if you pay attention to the names of the kernel API functions, you'd probably end up with the same conclusion.

[TeMPOraL]

Very relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1494/.

[eridius]

Probably because anyone who isn't a lawyer has no hope of considering this reply "on its merits".

My gut feeling is this "legal hack" wouldn't work, because if it did someone would have used it by now against some other law that provides for damages, and someone else would have figured out how to neuter the hack. Which is to say, there's probably an existing law that prevents this hack from working. But you'd need a lawyer to be able to say whether that's true or not.

[ionised]

I'd love to see them try this in the EU.

[wilg]

Oh are you a lawyer?

[dbdjfjrjvebd]

OP needs to be not just a lawyer, but your lawyer. I.e. someone who is accountable to you if their advice is wrong.