[gourou]

> giving the right to sue to customers who have had their location data shared without their explicit permission.

Are Terms of Service considered explicit?

[save_ferris]

Hopefully not, nobody reads the TOS and it's really unreasonable to expect users to. For example, Twitter's TOS clocks in at around 5,000 words, who has time for that?

Between the apps for work and the apps I use for fun, it would take me weeks to fully read through all of the TOS for every piece of software I use if I was insane enough to do it.

[rubinelli]

"Nobody reads those" isn't a valid defense. That said, I see a huge problem in adding abusive clauses when you have a monopoly or duopoly in the area. The customer can refuse, but then what? Will they simply not have a phone or Internet?

[jonlucc]

> "Nobody reads those" isn't a valid defense.

Why not? Presumably the goal is that consumers understand the agreements they're in. If nobody reads ToS and everyone knows that nobody reads ToS, then they aren't useful communication.

[rat9988]

Depends on the country I guess, but in some it is a very valid defense.

[mondras]

> The language is designed to challenge the vague agreements customers click on when signing up for an app or a cellular service.

I guess not.