[grawprog]

The idea that companies can dictate terms that can be arbitrarily changed at whim where the only consent users need to give is the continued use of their product is pretty ludicrous as far as I'm concerned. I realize people should read terms and I do tend to, but often companies will make their policy changes obscure, they intentionally downplay when the make changes to terms.

If i enter into a contract with someone, specific permission is required from both parties on any changes. I personally don't understand how these terms of services, which are effectively contracts, get out of following contract law. If I agree to a terms of service, I an agreeing to a contract set out by that business at that time. Refusing to allow service for not agreeing to later changes put out by the service provider is illegal in any other form of business contract. I can't write a contract for some consulting work, get a customer to sign it, change the terms then refuse to hand over my completed work until they agree. I'd be taken to court.

[korethr]

IIRC, Terms of Service usually have a clause with language that states that the provider of the service may change the terms of the contract at any time without prior notice. If the user doesn't like the new terms, they can quit using the service.

Take-it-or-leave-it changes contracts are a thing in negotiated contracts between businesses as well. But rather than taking effect immediately, they'll happen when the contract is up for renewal.

As an example, an employer of mine used to have a software product offered for on-prem self-hosted use, or as a hosted service. Then, they decided to stop offering the self-hosted option and to only offer the software as a hosted service to reduce development and support costs of having to support the myriad configurations that come of a number of customers running their own on-prem setups. Customers had the option of converting to the hosted service option, or taking their business elsewhere. And so, when their existing on-prem contracts were up for renewal, those customers made the choice to find another solution, or convert to the hosted service.

So, IMO, these ToSes are following contract law. It just sucks that the contracts are so one-sided and the consumers of services offered really don't have an easy means of negotiating the terms to something better for themselves.

[grawprog]

>Terms of Service usually have a clause with language that states that the provider of the service may change the terms of the contract at any time without prior notice. If the user doesn't like the new terms, they can quit using the service

This is the issue I speak of. Part of contract law makes this illegal.

https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2018/h...

>The parties must usually mutually agree to alter or modify the contract. In some circumstances the underlying contract might give one party a unilateral right to make certain limited changes, but agreement is normally necessary.

>The parties must intend the alteration/modification permanently to affect their rights. If there is no such intention, then the change is likely to amount only to a temporary forbearance or concession, rather than a permanent variation of the contract.

>The parties must comply with any requirements as to the form of the variation. These could be specified by legislation, or set out in the original contract which is being varied.

>The agreement to vary a contract will need to be supported by consideration - something of value must be given in exchange for the alteration. If there is no such consideration, then the variation will need to be effected by deed.