[icyfox]

I know this happens with some frequency, I wonder how frequently the companies update the TOS with language like this. The very idea of a self-updating TOS that will govern all usage into perpetuity feels like it should have been legally stuck down years ago. This company's current language on indistinct modification rights:

> We reserve our right to alter the terms in this Agreement and/or the pricing information and method detailed in NightOwl app's website at any time. In case the Agreement is amended as described, we will post an updated version of it in our website, at which time it becomes active and binding.

> In case NightOwl app alters the Agreement in a way which will be deemed material to the relations and/or obligations of the parties by NightOwl app's sole decision, we will inform you of these changes on our website or via our social media accounts and other established communication channels.

Great, a website update for a locally installed application. Definitely going to subscribe to your social feed to get an update.

[cudgy]

“In case the Agreement is amended as described, we will post an updated version of it in our website, at which time it becomes active and binding”

Several years ago, a friend entered into a contract with Comcast for business internet and phone service that had similar wording and no actual URL for the site. My instinct was that would be unenforceable and unconscionable, but you’d think Comcast legal would have thought it through.

Any lawyers out there familiar with this type of wording related to contract changes being posted on a website, particularly where no notice is given?

[lynguist]

Could maps.me also be in a similar state? It used to be a good OpenStreetsMaps frontend and it was bought (possibly twice) by some investor firm to generate profit.

I don’t know what is the state of this app now. Does anyone know? What is the profit scheme (I suspect it might be similar to this one described here) and to which app would you switch instead?

[jcul]

OrganicMaps is a FOSS fork of maps.me I believe.

I've been using it and it is great.

https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps

[andrepd]

+1 for Organic Maps, it's an amazing app (I still keep OsmAnd installed for some more advanced uses)

[burkaman]

It has been struck down and probably would be again if anyone felt like suing: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/07/court-says-no-to..., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=592583419165850...

> [Safeway] reserves the right to, from time to time, with or without notice to you, in [Safeway's] sole discretion, amend the Terms and Conditions for use and purchases regarding the online shopping services. Any amendment by [Safeway] will be effective only as to orders you place after [Safeway's] revisions of these Terms and Conditions as displayed on the Web site. [Safeway] will plan to notify you of any material amendments to these Terms and Conditions; however, it is your responsibility to review the Terms and Conditions before submitting each order. [Safeway] has no responsibility to notify you of any changes before any such changes are effective.

> Defendant argues that, at the time of their safeway.com registration, Class Members agreed to give Safeway the authority to change the terms of the contract without notice to them, by indicating that they agreed to the version of the Special Terms that are in effect at the time they make their subsequent orders. Defendant's version of the Special Terms states that customers agree to the terms "and the form in which they appear at the time your online transaction is processed." ECF No. 187 at 16-17 (emphases added). In order to complete their registration, Customers were required to manifest agreement to the Special Terms shown to them by clicking a link. Defendant contends that, as a result of users' agreement to this Special Term at the time of their registration, Safeway was not required to notify customers of future changes to the terms for those changes to become effective. Safeway contends that, because Class Members read the initial registration contract, every time they opted to go forward with an online purchase after registration, they were on notice that they were assenting to a new contractual agreement, governed by the Special Terms operative elsewhere on the website at the time of that purchase.

> The Court rejects this argument. The safeway.com agreement did not give Safeway the power to bind its customers to unknown future contract terms, because consumers cannot assent to terms that do not yet exist. A user confronting a contract in which she purports to agree to terms in whatever form they may appear in the future cannot know to what she is are agreeing. At most, this term in the safeway.com agreement could be read to indicate that a customer agrees to read the terms and conditions every time she makes a purchase on the website in the future. But the Court also concludes that, even in light of their agreement to the Special Terms at the time of registration, customers' assent to the revised Terms cannot be inferred from their continued use of safeway.com when they were never given notice that the Special Terms had been altered.

[icyfox]

Thanks for linking to these. They are certainly in the right direction although they're a bit vague on how much notice to give:

> Even if Douglas’s continued use of Talk America’s service could be considered assent, such assent can only be inferred after he received proper notice of the proposed changes. Douglas claims that no such notice was given. (Douglas v. Talk America)

> But the Court also concludes that, even in light of their agreement to the Special Terms at the time of registration, customers' assent to the revised Terms cannot be inferred from their continued use of safeway.com when they were never given notice that the Special Terms had been altered. (Rodman v. Safeway)

Both cases seem focused pretty narrowly on situations where notice was not given. Is continuing to use an app after an update notification enough? Glancing over a GDPR-like popup? An email? I'd prefer an explicit opt-in to changes once they've occurred.

[balaji1]

was there a similar (policy or functionality) change to "the great suspender" chrome extension recently? Browsers seem to have marked it as unsafe.

[cipheredStones]

It's been malicious for two and a half years now:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25846504

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25622015

[mschuster91]

Duuuuuude. How far has time passed?!

[balaji1]

damn.. what's the TLDR? What is the speculated worst?

[dspillett]

TLDR: it was bought, and the new owners inserted telemetry that potentially reported all the extension's user's viewing history back to them.

What the “speculated worst” is from that depends on your paranoia about such information gathering. Most likely the information was to be fed into various marketing databases.

Obviously the same information could be used for even more nefarious purposes, particularly for users in countries with very monitor-y governments and people whose governments otherwise want human-rights abusing controls over them (women in a number of US states for instance – in fact even if their local legislature is not acting on tjhat sort of information, unpleasant groups active within the state might be).