The Parties mutually agree that any and all disputes arising from or relating to this Agreement, including the interpretation or application of this Agreement will be submitted exclusively to final and binding arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. The arbitration will be conducted the state of Delaware or such other location as the Parties may agree, by a single arbitrator in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Delaware.
Boom. No more pesky California law.
California does this for labor violations through it's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): https://www.dir.ca.gov/Private-Attorneys-General-Act/Private...
Glancing at the Wikipedia page for CCPA, it's possible that the CCPA is structured similarly--"Companies ... can be ordered in civil class action lawsuits ... subject to an option of the California Attorney General's Office to prosecute the company instead of allowing civil suits to be brought against it."
That said, I don't think California's PAGA has ever been tested vis-a-vis the FAA in the Supreme Court because it was only recently that they decided to strictly apply the FAA to employment contracts.
Any provision of a contract or agreement of any kind that purports to waive or limit in any way a consumer’s rights under this title, including, but not limited to, any right to a remedy or means of enforcement, shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable
Why not consider this reply on its merits?
In other words, laws aren't code or mathematics. They're not pure exercises of abstract thought to be considered in isolation. Trying to treat them that way is going to lead to trouble.
No.
It's fine for people to speculate about medical ideas, legal ideas, etc. Especially on a forum like this where there is no pretense that people are offering genuine legal advice.
After all, most of the time, people are writing about things they don't know all that much about.
Either wild speculation on medicine and law should be fine (this is my position).
Or, people should fear medical speculation as much as they do legal speculation (I think this is the more pathetic option).
carbocation is right about the underlying point, btw. This is an internet forum, the purpose is good conversation, and speculation is a normal part of conversation. It can of course be dumb and low-information, but it needn't be.
Judges aren't complete morons and will take a dim view of "hacks". There could be loopholes somewhere but you'd need a lawyer to spot them.
A similar thing happened with Perl's Artistic License. Its version 2 is basically also a lawyer-approved rewrite.
In other words, hackers, don't try this at home. There are professionals who can do this for you.
My gut feeling is this "legal hack" wouldn't work, because if it did someone would have used it by now against some other law that provides for damages, and someone else would have figured out how to neuter the hack. Which is to say, there's probably an existing law that prevents this hack from working. But you'd need a lawyer to be able to say whether that's true or not.
If my identity gets stolen, there is much more than $750 at stake on my end.
Are there any guidelines for determining actual compensation?
>Additionally, if a data breach occurs, the law permits consumers to recover up to $750 per incident (or actual damages, if greater).
So that might just be $750 as part of a punitive fee.
The idea with statutory damages is that determining the actual damages can be difficult and uncertain, so some laws allow plaintiffs to elect to ask for damages from a standard range, and the court will decide where damages should fall in that range based. It's basically saying "just give me about what is typical for cases like this one".
"Leaked (e-mail) adresses"
to
"Leaked nude photographs".
At least in the US, rest of the world isn't that shocked of our natural form.
This is great!