[albertgoeswoof]

This is why they’re non enforceable in a real court. If I put the rights to your inheritance in a tos no judge is actually going to enforce that, because no one would reasonably sign that away for access to a website.

In reality only things which you would reasonably expect to be in a tos or privacy policy could be enforced, given 99% of users don’t read them, or understand them.

[nikanj]

Luckily they don't end up in real courts, because corporations go for mandatory arbitration nowadays.

[lcall]

IANAL, but it seems like I have read multiple times (incl. on HN discussions, maybe by a lawyer) that such agreements are in fact enforceable in real courts, at least in the USA. I read many years ago that in the 9th circuit one provision was struck down, that the user was bound by any changes posted online w/o notice, but I don't know the status of that anywhere now.

[vlovich123]

That sounds like how you wish the works worked vs how it does. Are you aware of a single court case where a judge dismissed it on those grounds?

[still_grokking]

I don't know about US law but at least in Germany it's really like pointed out.

There is a law governing TOS terms, and it says among other things that the TOS can't contain unexpected und unrelated terms.

So if you write for example into the TOS governing your website something like that every visitor owes you 1000 bucks that won't be enforceable.

The TOS related legislation is nothing new. It was there already in the analog age to prevent companies form tricking people into signing inappropriate contracts.