But the “initial” T&C allows them to cancel your contract unless there’s a minimum contractual period. They can take that opportunity to force you into a deal change. The change is that now just using the service is considered consent.

The real problem is that the law allows this power imbalance and doesn’t tip the scales to even it out for the end user. That for me is evidence that the law is made for the companies (probably by the companies too).

I have the same in the car. Been postponing for 2 years now.

I wonder if this can be weaponized by users too (probably no legal basis for this), just send them a new T&C again and again and say delivering the service is consent. Force the companies to say the quiet part out loud: users are not allowed to have the same liberties as the company.

>just send them a new T&C every day and say delivering the service is consent.

That’s domestic terrorism (charges)

> That for me is evidence that the law is made for the companies (probably by the companies too).

Yes, everything is becoming more and more convenient for big corporations while individual citizens need to navigate an ever increasingly complex world. Laws are designed to protect capital not individual citizens nor society. That never ends well.

This is just the reality of the power asymmetry and is exactly the same for small company Vs big company. As a small company your business is just not worth that much to big company, so you choices are accept the terms offered or go elsewhere. Or, in an ideal world, there is a competitor who's found a space in the market offering better terms than big company.

Strike out the parts that you don’t like and email it to legal@ Include a cute little JavaScript cat animation to brighten their day.

please no. no js in anyone's inbox. please. (I do think attaching a gif to the email is a good idea though ;) )

I did this to FreeNow (the Uber competitor). No cat though. When they changed their “late fee” that I pay to the driver they if I’m late but nobody pays me if they’re late, and made it implicitly accepted, I emailed them my conditions and said that continuing to provide me a service is implicitly accepting them.

I still have the account. Do you think it worked? I’ll need to test that in court.

If you decline the new contract, you're entirely welcome to continue on the old T&C.

Worth noting, the old T&C you agreed to probably include a clause where either party can unilaterally terminate the agreement for any reason, which they can then invoke.

Also worth noting, the old T&C you agreed to probably included a clause about these sorts of updates, too.

So, right there, you've already explicitly agreed to a contract that can be terminated if you don't accept updates.

> The company should not be able to change those conditions without my explicit permission.

The legal argument is that (a) you were explicitly notified of these changes, (b) your rights to use the service under the previous contract have been revoked, and (c) you're continuing to use the service.

So, either you're stealing their service, or you did in fact explicitly agree to the new contract - "“Parties traditionally manifest assent by written or spoken word, but they can also do so through conduct.” Berman, 30 F.4th at 855."

> If you decline the new contract, you're entirely welcome to continue on the old T&C.

I think the point of contention here is that in practice, there is no way to continue on the old terms of service/contract. Suppose you're using a note taking app, and one day they update their terms of service to say that they can use your notes to train their AI. "Continued use implies consent," so you are locked into the new terms of service unless you stop using the app right then and there. You are not afforded the opportunity to decline the new terms of service and continue on the old ones.

> I think the point of contention here is that in practice, there is no way to continue on the old terms of service/contract.

Yeah, because, as I said: the old T&C you agreed to probably include a clause where either party can unilaterally terminate the agreement for any reason, which they can then invoke.

So, when they terminate that old contract, it's based entirely on the terms of that old contract. You agreed to this up-front.

What's the alternative? Force companies to offer indefinite contracts?

I don't know where to draw the line, but if I buy a phone for $1000, I don't think the company should be able to change their terms of service on me the next day.

Clauses existing, have very little to do with it being enforceable.

Vader might say he can change the deal at any point, but consumer law generally requires that what is purchased reflects what is advertised.

If you don't agree to a new set of terms, because the service is changed from what you purchased, then both parties generally should still be party to the previous.

Notification alone, is not enough. Agreement is required.

Again, the previous terms allow them to terminate the previous contract, and ... hey look, they're exercising their rights, listed in the original contract, which you did in fact agree to.

If you want to continue using the services, and know about the change, then that's legally, as cited in the actual court documents in OP, an agreement to the new terms.

> Clauses existing, have very little to do with it being enforceable.

You cannot cancel a contract for "any reason". In most jurisdictions that will be an unenforceable term.

Usage here being consent, is an unpublished ruling. It does not set precedent, it refers only to these specific circumstances, where clients sought to understand terms before choosing to continue usage.

Legally, usage with foreknowledge, is consent. Usage where you already agreed to terms implicitly, because you sought and understood them beforehand.

It will not always be an agreement to new terms.

> This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

The OP and I both explicitly cites their source for "usage + knowledge = consent", and it comes from fairly basic contract law. Are you saying this ruling cites another unpublished ruling or something?

I quoted the article. The article itself claims to be an unpublished ruling.

> If you decline the new contract, you're entirely welcome to continue on the old T&C.

Obviously never true anywhere on Earth.

Here in Sweden the thing that makes something a contract is that you can't change it-- that it has definite provisions that have been agreed and that both parties actually expect the other to hold up their part.

The US breaking its contract law to treat non-contracts as contracts is one of the most insane things I've seen a legal system do to itself.

I do not think this is true for Sweden.

The key difference, is that the US is many jurisdictions (Federal + 50 states + a lot of others, from counties to cities to territories to MANY others), and the variance amongst those is high.

The key thing well regulated places like Sweden get right, is that in consumer contracts you have minimum bars that you must meet regardless of what you can get the consumer to agree to. So, for instance, return policies, for goods bought online have minimum standards they must meet.

In the US, these things have huge variability. There are well regulated states, and well, the others.

>The key thing well regulated places like Sweden get right, is that in consumer contracts you have minimum bars that you must meet regardless of what you can get the consumer to agree to. So, for instance, return policies, for goods bought online have minimum standards they must meet.

Yes, but Swedish contract law actually is like this. A contract is a specific agreement, it can never be "Oh well, you can add provisions as you like if you send them to me" or "I will pay whatever".

The workaround is that each change is a new contract. If you don’t accept the changes the existing contract ends and that’s it. But the power is mostly with the provider, you need it more than it needs you, so you will want the new contract. You can also ask and negotiate terms and the provider has the same choice. If there’s healthy competition you have some power, otherwise you are out of luck.

Yes, you have to enter into a new contract with the person you want a new contract with and he has to actually agree, as in any contract negotiation.

Yeah, “implicit agreement” isn’t a real agreement.

But that would supposed need to have some explicit text stating the expiration of that contract. An existing contract can't just end when provider feels like it, I suppose?

I would guess it can end the moment either party wants, unless a length was established. At the end of the month or year you’ve paid for, perhaps with a minimum notice, would make sense. Otherwise the provider can refuse to let you stop paying, citing the contract.

Every contract has that, either party can exit the contract under normal conditions. You can cancel your Netflix subscription with a short notice period. They can do the same. They use the notice period as grace period for you to accept the new conditions. You accept a new contract with new conditions.

I negotiated my mobile phone or internet contracts again and again, to get better deals. I threaten to leave, they throw a bone. Because they know I have options. Providers who know you don’t will squeeze you however they please.

Which is still loads preferable to what's happening in TFA.

Do you think it's likely that these kinds of things come about because there's varity in the myriad of jurisdictions in America or that there are monied interests who stand to benefit from it?

Like to put it another way how much of this is 'We must do it this way because Americans are simply built different and we're just special' vs 'this makes a handful of people a bunch of money and they have teams of lobbyists, marketers, and lawyers to normalize this kind of stuff in society over time'?

It's probably a bit of both from what I've seen of how Americans tend to react to their government doing things (online anyways).

The US's quagmire of incoherent laws and many jurisdictions seems to be a bad combination of:

* Apathetic voters that are raised on a media diet of "big government bad", which impedes any regulations on a federal level. (Note that this is irrespective on if the voters actually want a small government, it's what they're led to believe.)

* Politicians that don't like to give up power; there's an unusual desire for local/state US officials to claim responsibility and get very pissy when the federal government steps in with a standardized solution. This is very unusual compared to other countries; punting responsibilities to local officials in other countries is generally seen as a way for politicians to abdicate responsibility by letting it die in micromanagement and overworked administrative workers and isn't popular to do anymore these days. (This is also a two way street, where federal US lawmakers can abdicate making any legislation that isn't extremely popular by just punting it down to the states, even if they have legal majorities.)

* The US has a court system that overly favors case law rather than actual law. Laws in the US are permitted to be painfully underdefined since there's an assumption that the courts will work out all the finer details. It's an old system more designed around the days of bad infrastructure across large distances (like well, the British Empire, which it's copied from). It's meant to empower the judicial branch to be able to make the snap decision even if there's not directly a law on the books (yet) or if a law hasn't actually reached the judiciary in question. The result is that you end up with a bunch of different judiciaries, each with their own slightly different rules. It also encourages other bad behavior like jurisdiction shopping where people will try to find the judiciary most favorable to them, crafting "the perfect case" to get a case law on the books the way you want it to get judges to override similar cases and so on and so forth - in other countries, what the supreme court judges doesn't have nearly the same lasting impact that a decision in the US has.

* And finally, the entire system is effectively kept stuck in place because lobbyists like it this way; if they want to kill regulation, they just get some states to pass on it and then hem and haw at the notion of a federal regulation. Politicians keep it in place on their own, lobbyists provide them the grease/excuse to keep doing it. (And those lobbyists these days also have increasing amounts of ownership over the US media, so the rethoric about voters not liking big government regulations is reinforced by them as well.)

It didn't end up this way on purpose; the historical reasons for this are mostly untied from lobby interests (which is mostly just "the US is the size of a continent in width", "states didn't actually work together that much at first" and "the US copied shit from the British Empire"), but they're kept this way by lobby interests.

This is not true. It is 100% possible to write a contract in Sweden where one of the paragraphs says that you can change it in this and that way. And if we're talking about business to business contracts, it will probably in almost all cases be enforceable, even if you're writing that one party can just announce changes. In fact, I think most business to business contracts have some kind of clause specifying that it is possible to raise prices or change certain things.

That absolutely isn't true. You can enter into agreements about how to form a contract, but a contract is definite, completely specific, with no changing provisions. That's what makes it a contract.

If you have an agreement that says one party can announce changes, you don't have a contract, because those changes were not agreed to.

I am not sure that is correct. At the least it sounds to be a violation of EU laws if this were possible in Sweden; but, even aside from it, I do not think a contract can be changed willy-nilly without offering termination of the service in due time.

Presumable in Sweeden you can agree to new contract that supercedes the current one? That's all that's (argueable) happening here.

To me the insane part is that contracts don't have to be registered with the courts (or some qualified third party) ahead of time.

Like each party could show up with their own piece of paper (or not be able to provide it). Which is largely the issue here in that one party is showing up with a 2021 document and the other a 2023 document.

>Presumable in Sweeden you can agree to new contract that supercedes the current one? That's all that's (argueable) happening here.

Yes, of course.

We don't have any rules about contracts needing to be written down or registered or anything of that sort. Even verbal agreement are valid, and you are entering into simple contracts even when you buy something in a store.

Wondering how Spotify is handling this issue

https://newsroom.spotify.com/2025-09-24/spotify-terms-creato...

That's not what's happening as far as I can tell.

These users have agreed to a monthly contract or, if there is no money paid, a contract with no finite end date but with provisions to change terms, essentially terminating and restarting. So the service provider has decided to amend the contract at the end of the current (one month) contract in the first case, or on some date arbitrary date in the second (unpaid). The users are free not to accept the new contracts.

So nobody is just changing a contract mid stream. Use of a service month-to-month implicitly agrees to this: your ability to stop using and paying them on the 1st of the next month is their ability to change the terms on which the service is offered next month.

And btw, everyone on here hates this, but I don't know how else it could work. The idea that if I sell a customer one month of a paid saas on a monthly plan I'm somehow obligated to never change my terms or price forever as long as he or she keeps paying is beyond absurd. If people want stable terms, they need to find software that will sell them annual or multiyear contracts.

I think the way it would normally work is that you present them with the price offer and ask whether they accept, and if they do you render the service.

This is exactly the same. The company has changed the terms under which they will offer the service starting next contract renewal.

The other side of this is that companies do want to change their T&C from time to time, so what do they do, force you to quit and then sign up again? That adds a lot of friction. Or do they tag things and say "Customer X signed up on this date, so he is bound by T&C number 12, whereas this other customer signed up a year later and is bound by T&C number 13". That seems unwieldy since there is a common infrastructure.

I get emails from time to time that "Policy X has changed and will take a effect in X weeks" so at least I'm given advance notice, and am basically OK with that approach as long as the changes are spelled out clearly and not hidden in hundreds of pages of legalese. Maybe an LLM would help here, and translate what the new changes in terms really means so I can decide whether to continue with the service or not. In general I'm OK as long as I'm given enough notice and it's clear what is happening.

The same thing happens with pricing. What does a company do when they want to increase rates, or change their products? They send out a notification that starting on a certain date, the prices will go up. I don't think anyone objects to that. How is a T&C change different?

I work for a digital bank and the versioning is essentially exactly how we handle T&Cs. The user accepts a certain version of some terms, and if we launch for example a new product that requires changed T&Cs then we ask the user to accept them if they want to use the new product. If they don't, well, then they just keep using the existing offering without accepting any new terms.

That’s sounds reasonable for services-based consumer offerings. Which would include consumer SaaS services.

Where it gets a little muddy for me is hardware with services attached (a new EV, etc)… you pay $60k for a car, it really shouldn’t be possible to force a new ToS on something they has physical ownership. And definitely not possible to brick or de-option the car due to refusal to accept new ToS.

Telcos and insurers (especially life, pensions) too. Not rocket science.

Versioned terms help when changes apply to a product, not the whole platform. For a new product with different rules, require explicit, time-stamped consent before first use; otherwise grandfather users on existing terms. Provide a changelog, a grace period, and an easy opt-out. At Getly, per-product terms and payout rules kept separate can reduce friction.

No it is absolutely fine. I pay my lawyer 100k/y to read through all my TCs for my 2k/y subscription spend. Makes sense.

This all just needs statutory laws and eliminate TCs for basic services. It is a scam.

Rental contract sure. Employment contract yeah.

I bet a single set of statutory rights for consumer and provider could cover most things.

B2B is different.

> What does a company do when they want to increase rates, or change their products? They send out a notification that starting on a certain date, the prices will go up. I don't think anyone objects to that.

Of course you do. I have a fixed contract with my mobile carrier - if they want to change rates, tough luck. Once the current contract expires, they can indeed notify me that the new contract will auto-renew with a new rate, and I can either accept it or choose a new carrier. But they very much can't change prices, or alter services rendered, while the current contract is in force.

I'm still on a contract from 2016 or so with my mobile (cell) operator. 10 years of inflation, I pay basically nothing for some occassional data use and more voice than I could ever use.

Of course it irks them much to not be able to sell me less for more. But they can't do anything short of disconnecting me and that is unspeakable for a mobile operator.

I like this very much.

You can probably do even better with a prepaid mvno at this point

I used to have a good deal for years at Orange. They tried to get me on a new contract (slightly expensive) for a while, but at some point they just decommissioned the old program, basically they cancelled the old contracts and migrated everyone to the new plan. It was a minor change to me so went with it, then later they started to hike prices on the new plan, eventually I cancelled and left them after about 20 years.

> Or do they tag things and say "Customer X signed up on this date, so he is bound by T&C number 12, whereas this other customer signed up a year later and is bound by T&C number 13". That seems unwieldy since there is a common infrastructure.

If the company would like their T&C to carry the force of a binding contract upon me, then yes, keeping track of my agreement seems like the absolute bare minimum they must do.

Either these things are real contracts or they are not. The idea that it's too onerous for a company to keep track of its contractual agreements is absurd. That's giving them all the benefits of a real contract with none of the obligations.

>so what do they do, force you to quit and then sign up again? That adds a lot of friction.

Maybe that's a good thing? Imagine if changing the T&C required cancelling everyone's account and then letting people sign up with new accounts if they still want to do business. That would probably make any T&C changes much harder to justify, creating a balance against what many see as abusing T&C updates.

> force you to quit and then sign up again? If they change the price, YES!

Otherwise, force the user to accept the new terms affirmatively. Then offer to refund any money if the user does not.

My Apple TV started doing this. New Terms, agree or “not now”. Ok how about never?

There is a strange phenomena where introducing tech makes people suddenly blind or numb to established rules.

Can you imagine buying a car in the seventies and a month later finding a technician under your parked car making adjustments to it? You’d kick them out and call the police. But put an internet connection in between and it’s ok.

Same goes for wiretapping (compare Nixon vs current state), unlicensed hotels and cabs being ok when booked by an app, and so on.

I got one of these on my tv. I returned it.

> that contract was made under existing T&C

That's a very roundabout way of saying it. The T&C is a contract. They should not be able to pretend you agreed to a new contract.

break the screen

this. was it LG that shipped an update to their TVs that made it play ads and bricked the TV if you didn't agree?