[crote]

Until your country actually implements laws like these and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation".

There are plenty of European countries which already have some laws like these. When I buy something on the internet, I have 14 days to return it if I don't like it. I am guaranteed to have a reasonable warranty. Companies cannot abuse my personal data without explicit consent. And indeed, forced binding arbitrage is also not allowed.

There is no need to mandate a template ToS, you just need basic consumer protection laws.

[timthelion]

Having grown up in the US, my absolute favorite law in Czechia is the one that says the advertised price has to equal the price on the bill. In the US, you get a $20 cell phone plan and the bill is for $60 after fees. In Czechia the price is always exactly as advertised.

[timthelion]

Another great on is that text size has legal meaning here. The larger/darker the text the greater the legal weight. So if the contract says two contradictory things, the larger text wins out...

[conjectures]

A bold move. I like it.

[anshorei]

A *bold* move indeed

[ajsnigrutin]

Is that actually the law? Can I get a link to that? In slovenia we have a "suggest-to-government" website, and i'll put the working example there and hopefully at least gain some traction somewhere

[timthelion]

Yes and no. The Czech law is very vague saying that contracts must be written in good will and be understandable by the signatories. It is the Czech supreme court which wrote up a legal test for understandability which you can find here https://www.epravo.cz/top/clanky/absolutni-zakaz-smluvnich-p...

I've translated the test using deepl:

Translation results

"In practice, the principle of fairness is manifested, inter alia, by the fact that the text of a consumer contract, especially if it is a form contract, should be sufficiently legible, clear and logically organised for the average consumer. For example, contractual terms must be of sufficient font size, not be significantly smaller than the surrounding text, and not be set out in sections which give the impression of being irrelevant. This principle of fairness also applies to the application of general terms and conditions. As stated in paragraph 9, general terms and conditions may also be applied in consumer contracts, but such application is subject not only to the formal limitations mentioned but also to restrictions as to content."

[sofixa]

To expand a bit, this isn't Czech-specific, in fact it's the norm across most of the developed world.

[logifail]

> When I buy something on the internet, I have 14 days to return it if I don't like it

One (unintended?) consequence of this is that as a consumer, you cannot buy an annual digital motorway toll pass in Austria with immediate validity. The earliest your pass can start from is 18 days from the date of purchase.

"Customers can withdraw from the online purchase of a digital vignette within 14 days. Taking into account a further three-day period for mail, your digital 2-months and annual vignette is only valid from the 18th day after purchase."

https://www.asfinag.at/en/toll/vignette/digital-vignette/

How glorious that it's necessary to include 3 extra days to cover the potential delivery time of postal mail in the event of a return for an entirely digital product :/

The workaround for this - which I discovered last time I drove a rental car in Austria - is to tick the box that says "I'm a business, not a consumer". You don't need to prove you're a business, just to tick the box. Consumer protection nullified, can purchase product valid immediately.... <sigh>

[NeoTar]

Interesting though, that's not what the regulations say - DIRECTIVE 97/7/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...

3. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the consumer may not exercise the right of withdrawal provided for in paragraph 1 in respect of contracts:

- for the provision of services if performance has begun, with the consumer's agreement, before the end of the seven working day period referred to in paragraph 1,

[logifail]

> Interesting though, that's not what the regulations say [..]

Of course they don't, but thanks for the specific link!

The "gold-plating" - or indeed misunderstanding - of EU regulations has a long and (in)glorious history.

[RandomLensman]

You can buy digital goods for immediate use in other EU countries as a consumer - this sounds like something more specific (is it actually even the same in Austria for things like an e-book?).

[mimischi]

Aren’t you able to buy a sticker vignette at just about every stop kilometers away from the Austrian border, as well as inside?

I get your point that the digital one has to jump through hoops due to these regulations, but there are alternatives if you need one /now/

[RyanHamilton]

Yes, there are.

[Detrytus]

Some online services simply ask you to wave your 14-day return right if you want to start using the service immediately. Not sure why they won't do this in this case.

[ponderings]

In NL you don't get your 14 days on remote purchases when it doesn't make sense. You cant purchase a game play it and return it. You cant eat the food. You cant wear the dress etc

If the 14 days do apply you have to inform the customer about it or it turns into 12 months.

[X0Refraction]

Strange, I would have thought a pro rata refund would be allowable in these cases. I'm pretty sure that's how it works with insurance so I'm unsure why a toll pass would be any different.

[carstenhag]

Because they only sell them for durations of 10 days, 2 months and 1 year. So if you only need to cross the country for 5 hours, they would lose a lot of money.

[giik]

This is no longer true, I believe (starting Dec 1 2023). You can buy the vignette online starting immediately.

[logifail]

> This is no longer true, I believe (starting Dec 1 2023). You can buy the vignette online starting immediately

If that's true then it's possible that Asfinag (the toll agency) haven't updated their website. On trying a test purchase just now to buy a two-month or annual pass it still states:

"I'm a consumer

Digital 2-month vignettes and digital annual vignettes purchased today are valid from 25.12.2023 at the earliest due to the right of withdrawal when purchasing online. All other toll products can be used immediately. (More info in the FAQ)

I represent a company

The right of withdrawal does not apply to commercial customers; purchased digital toll products are therefore valid immediately. (More info in the FAQ)"

[giik]

I was only partially correct. Looked again at asfinag and the grace period does not apply to 1 and 10-day vignettes. From their website:

"18-days-period Consumer protection is very important to us – especially as far as our digital products are concerned. Customers can withdraw from the online purchase of a digital vignette within 14 days. Taking into account a further three-day period for mail, your digital 2-months and annual vignette is only valid from the 18th day after purchase.

This deadline does not apply if you purchase a 1-day or 10-day vignette!"

[account42]

> "18-days-period Consumer protection is very important to us"

Which is of course how you immediately know that it is not just unimportant to them but they will try to do anything to not have to abide by the rules and maliciously comply with anything they can't disregard completely.

Really the 14 days should start when you actually receive the item in a usable state and if the law actually allows these kind of workarounds around that then it should be changed.

[cjrp]

Can't the rental car companies sell you a physical vignette when you pick up the car?

[logifail]

If you collect a vehicle in Austria it's almost certainly already got a vignette (pretty tricky for the rental company to operate an Austria-registered vehicle without one).

If you collect in your car in Germany, as I did, and drive it over the border yourself then you almost certainly won't get one (although I've ever been lucky!) so you need to purchase one (physical or digital) before (or as) you cross the border.

[pjmlp]

I can't speak for Austria, however that is exactly what it happens in Portugal and Switzerland.

In Portugal, we use digital ones (Via Verde) and they are activated at time of purchase.

In Switzerland, physical vignettes are always available on rented cars.

[orangepurple]

You can always buy a physical sticker at the gas stations near the border

[that_guy_iain]

> There are plenty of European countries which already have some laws like these. When I buy something on the internet, I have 14 days to return it if I don't like it. I am guaranteed to have a reasonable warranty. Companies cannot abuse my personal data without explicit consent. And indeed, forced binding arbitrage is also not allowed.

This is because of EU laws. A lot of the best laws we have in European countries are because of EU laws.

I also suspect that this clause isn't valid in most of Europe.

[concerned_user]

You are correct, I can not find where arbitration is forbidden in the directive also it is quite the opposite.

I think in this particular case we are talking about Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on consumer rights.

Article 6(1)

(t) where applicable, the possibility of having recourse to an out-of-court complaint and redress mechanism, to which the trader is subject, and the methods for having access to it.

[gpderetta]

ADR is not forbidden. But it is regulated by 2013/11/EU [1]. In particular:

" (43)

An agreement between a consumer and a trader to submit complaints to an ADR entity should not be binding on the consumer if it was concluded before the dispute has materialised and if it has the effect of depriving the consumer of his right to bring an action before the courts for the settlement of the dispute. Furthermore, in ADR procedures which aim at resolving the dispute by imposing a solution, the solution imposed should be binding on the parties only if they were informed of its binding nature in advance and specifically accepted this. Specific acceptance by the trader should not be required if national rules provide that such solutions are binding on traders."

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A...

[that_guy_iain]

And some countries such as Germany the ADR clause has to be separate from the main contract.

[throwaway2037]

Australia also has very strong consumer protection laws. I'm not an Aussie, but many come here and tell us about it. It doesn't seem to scare companies away from doing B2C business in Australia.

[Intermernet]

As an Aussie, I can say that our consumer protection laws are awesome. Some multinational / international companies have been bitten by them, but only because they didn't do their due diligence before launching in Australia.

They're really an example of laws designed to protect people. I've universally found that people who complain about them either don't understand them, or they're trying to take advantage of people.

I don't understand how other countries operate without similar laws!

[sensanaty]

IIRC, Steam famously had to implement their refund system after the Aus government threatened legal action against them. They ended up making the refund system global rather than Aus-specific, so cheers for that one mates!

[dimmke]

The problem as I see it is that the internet gives businesses the ability to operate globally, but having to be in specific compliance with different laws from every single country (or group like EU) is really challenging and in some cases the regulations are misguided (I think the rise of cookie consent banners is one of the crappiest things to happen to the internet as a user)

And that does make it hard, especially if you want to start an internet based business without a ton of money. It adds a huge barrier to entry. Whereas existing players can take on the burden of complying etc... further solidifying the position of very large tech companies.

I do agree that basic consumer protection laws are needed, but one overzealous piece of regulation really can cause a lot of problems.

[account42]

> I think the rise of cookie consent banners is one of the crappiest things to happen to the internet as a user

Those have a simple compliant solution: Don't use more cookies (or other tracking) than you actually need to server the user.

[robertlagrant]

> and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation".

Thinking in such simple terms is going to draw you to wrong conclusions. Hacker News doesn't complain. People discuss things. Different people have different opinions. And if they did - so what? You're phrasing this as though people talking on Hacker News would somehow overturn common law.

> There is no need to mandate a template ToS

The post didn't mention this.

[j_maffe]

I think GP was a valid comment about how people propping up business hostility is one of the main reasons consumer law is very weak in the US. Of course, people are allowed to have opinions. GP is arguing what the results of one of these opinions are.

[acdha]

I’d also use the comparison between what was claimed about EU regulations in the UK during the years leading up to Brexit, and subsequent developments. The money spent promoting those false claims was effective.

[robertlagrant]

> GP is arguing what the results of one of these opinions are.

I'm saying HN is not the homogenous group the phrasing implies. I wasn't saying GP was implying people can't have opinions.

[georgedegennaro]

Only 14 days? You don’t get the gift card after the return in your country?

[account42]

14 days is the minimum legal requirement for returns without having to state a reason. And they have to give you back real money no some funny store currency. There are also munimum warranty periods.

[georgedegennaro]

You have to give a reason?

[mcpackieh]

> Until your country actually implements laws like these and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation".

Literally, so what? I don't understand your point. You can't be under the impression that all laws must be popular with all people, so what does it matter if some ancrap libertarians complain about it? This shouldn't stop the implementation of such laws.

[acdha]

It’s more than “so what” because those people aren’t coming from nowhere. American businesses spend a lot of money promoting libertarianism to this end, and it’s been effective enough that any reforms will face unified opposition from every Republican in Congress and likely some Democrats. Most of these are minority positions in the public but not in terms of legislative votes.

[randomdata]

> American businesses spend a lot of money promoting libertarianism to this end

American businesses would be the first one crying if they had to operate in a libertarian environment. In reality, they spend a lot of money to ensure heavy regulation that allows them to build moats.

[acdha]

They’re pretty fond of disclaiming obligations and not being sued in real courts, though. The key thing is recognizing that most of the libertarian media exists to serve the funders’ interests, not to promote a coherent ideology.

[randomdata]

What media is seen as holding a libertarian ideology? That is not a common bias. I do see the "consumers should have more choice" bent that you seem to be talking about more prevalently, but that's something quite different.

[acdha]

There’s a pipeline you can see when they’re workshopping ideas where things start at some think tank or other very openly ideological organization and moves through Reason, TNR, Fox, on to the WSJ and NYT where at each level the issue is pitched as more of a “lots of people are talking” kind of phenomenon detached from the source.

A really good example of this happened a decade ago when you started seeing these public reconsiderations where an NYT oped or someone on a Sunday news show was asking whether Rachel Carson was responsible for increased numbers of Africans dying from malaria. If you didn’t follow it before then, it looked like an organic discussion reconsidering whether an environmental success has unintended consequences.

If you had followed it, however, it was actually funded by the tobacco companies as part of an attack against public health agencies. They started with places like their lobbyist’s blog, got traction in the libertarian / right-wing blogosphere, then Reason, then the unabashed right-wing media, etc. until the more mainstream media felt the need to cover this story “everyone” was talking about:

https://www.wired.com/story/ddt-battle-scientific-skepticism...

https://web.archive.org/web/20080517020543/http://www.prospe...

It’s not uncommon to find that cycle behind “runaway government” news stories where the mainstream coverage doesn’t mention that someone’s full-time job was pitching that story to reporters.