Headline August 20, 2016/ ''' COMPUTERS -*SUPREME COURTS*- CONTRACTS ''

''' COMPUTERS -

*SUPREME COURTS*- CONTRACTS '''

**STUDENTS & STUDENTS**   and  the  World Students Society, and Sam Daily Times :  *'The Voice of the Voiceless**-

AND ALL,  and every single affiliate, so derived, invented, innovated, and created,  is the   'soul and sole'   ownership of every single student in the world :   One Share-Piece-Peace.

!WOW! - the most democratic, and the greatest organization ever created by God's creation, will be totally governed by elected students of the world only, but overseen by an  *International Committee* of outstanding leaders from every field. Therefore, and so,-....... 

IF A PRIZE WERE TO BE AWARDED for the world's clunkiest prose, the paragraphs of  indecipherable  text  that make up-

''Terms of use''  agreements would surely win. These legal thickets are designed to protect companies from litigious online shoppers and users of web services. 

Some firms require agreement, as when users are asked to click a box before creating an  Apple ID. Other sites explain their policies without seeking customers' explicit consent. 

Few consumers read these terms, let alone understand them. Because they involve no negotiation between customer and company, firms often insert language conferring broad protections to lower their risk of liability.

But in a new twist, legal disclaimers designed to limit lawsuits are now unleashing litigation.

A surge of lawsuits in America claims that  companies online  agreements violate consumers' rights. Consumers are banding together in class actions against targets including  Apple, Avis, Bed, bath & Beyond  Toys R Us and Facebook.

The cases have a tinge of the bizarre,  citing a law  passed   before companies even had websites. And the lawsuits  accuse companies of illegally limiting lawsuits, a convoluted argument  even by the standards of American jurisprudence. 

Nevertheless,  the litigation could have broad implications for the firms involved and for future class actions.

The suits seek to exploit the  Truth-in-Consumer-Contract,  Warranty and Notice Act, enacted in New Jersey 35 years ago. This was intended to prevent companies that do business in the state from using contracts, notices or signs to limit consumer rights protected by the law.

Trial lawyers only recently began to use  the  TCCWNA  to target online agreements.

''All firms that seek to represent consumers are constantly mining  different data fields for potential ways consumer rights are being violated.''  explains Gary Lynch, of   Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter  a law firm.

James Bogan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton,  which has defended companies in class actions, describes the use of  TCCWNA  as  ''very creative''.

*But class action lawyers such as Mr. Lynch may have struck gold*

The Lawsuits vary, but generally include allegations that online terms violate consumers rights to seek damage as protected by New Jersey Law and fail to explain which provisions cover New Jersey.

Usually in American law,  plaintiffs need not show injury or loss in order to sue but merely prove violation of the  TCCWNA. Morover, the lawsuits are aimed not only at firms headquartered in New Jersey but all manner of companies that merely do business in the state.

Gavin Rooney of   Lowenstein Sandler,  another law firm counts about 40 TCCWNA  cases in the recent surge. What is more, the  TCCWNA  entitles such successful plaintiff to at least  $100  in damages, plus fees to lawyers and so on. 

If a  website  has  millions  of visitors,  the cost to a company could be really staggering.

Whether the lawsuits will succeed is unclear. Whatever the outcome of individual claims. the barrage of litigation will probably prompt firms to adjust their  online terms. ''Don't overreach,'' Mr Rooney advises clients.

For example, a company might no longer add words to terms-of-use agreements that seek to limit liability from gross negligence or fraud.

That would be good news for the consumers. But changes to terms of use do not always serve their interests. A growing number of firms, emboldened by favourable   Supreme Court  rulings,   have adopted clauses that limit class-action suits.    

Consumers are instead restricted to resolving disputes individually. in arbitration. The  TCCWNA   cases may inspire more firms to add such caveats. That might limit frivolous suits. But consumers with grave complaints would be unable to sue, either.

In the end lawsuits  over  restrictive contracts  may make them more restrictive still. Oh, dear, dear, me!

With respectful dedication to all the Chief Justices, and Justices, of the world. See Ya all  Your Honours  on  !WOW!   -the World Students Society and !E-WOW!  -the Ecosystem 2011:

''' !Clicking Students Rights ON! '''

Good Night and God Bless

SAM Daily Times - the Voice of the Voiceless