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.
I'm saying HN is not the homogenous group the phrasing implies. I wasn't saying GP was implying people can't have opinions.
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>
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/
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.
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.
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,
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.
If the 14 days do apply you have to inform the customer about it or it turns into 12 months.
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)"
"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!"
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.
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!
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.
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.
" (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...
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Those have a simple compliant solution: Don't use more cookies (or other tracking) than you actually need to server the user.
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.