As of the
1st January 2011, the Trade Practices Amendment
(Australian Consumer Law) Act (No.1) 2010 introduced new laws dealing largely with unfair terms in
consumer contracts. This amendment
provides additional protection to consumers, by giving courts the power to find
that a term is unfair and as such void.
In February
2009 social networking website Facebook made changes to their terms of use
which went unnoticed until one user complained about them on a blog. The change in terms gave Facebook perpetual
and irrevocable ownership of user information.
It is difficult for me to comprehend how websites have gotten away with
this for so long; this case is especially shocking as the website could have
made economic gains from the sale or use of user’s private content in
advertising.
But just
how much notice should websites be required to provide their users? In the case of Joe Douglas vs. United States
District Court (More here) it was held that simply posting a revised contract on a website
suffices. Whilst it may not be practical to require a website operator with
often thousands of users to personally alert each user to these changes it is
important to consider the rights of both parties. The practicality issues faced
by website operators can be balanced to also meet the needs of users through
such requirements as a public notice on the home page of websites, or perhaps
the sending out of a generic automated email advice to all users.
No comments:
Post a Comment