There has been some discussion on a point linked to DDG, so I drop it here to let other opinions express:
Point 33461 (ToS;DR Phoenix)
By continuing to use our Services after any such change, you are consenting to them and agree they will govern your continued use of our Services.
It has been linked to Case 403: Instead of asking directly, this Service will assume your consent merely from your usage. since the service never required the user to agree to the terms.
However, it could be linked to Case 277: Conditions may change, but your continued acceptance is not inferred from an earlier acceptance due to the service’s nature (no account creation leads to no way of seeking user consent).
Given the meaning of the cases, I’d say they are incompatible so shouldn’t be linked to a same service.
What are your thoughts?
i’d agree with you on that, i think 1 should be renamed
What rephrasal would you suggest?
i dont know i was just saying one should be re-phrased
This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
I’ve reopened this as I feel it still needs to be discussed, as the points have not been approved/declined/changes requested.
I think that case 403 and 277 are well written already.
I also think that they are incompatible because they contradict each other:
If conditions change (277) then they are auto-accepted. That you accept the auto-acceptance is inferred from your earlier acceptance of 403.
Think of this case:
403 was not true in May (i.e. terms required active consent), but 277 was true (conditions may change, but actual change of f.e. data exchange consent requires additional explicit consent of the new terms).
In June the service changes to 403 (implicit consent from usage) and then change in July that all data will be sold to a data broker.
This instantly violates the previous held-to-be-true 277 which people, who read the original terms, still think are in place.
Agreed. 403 and 227 are incompatible. I think it makes the most sense to keep 403 and discard 227 for this case.