W
winstep2k
Guest
In the state of California, would an online contract with an Internet Access Provider be "Strictly legal" under the following circumstances?:
Under section 4 of the contract, certain behaviors and and activities by subscribers to the service are strictly prohibited by the service. Remedies for subscribers who encounter such behaviors and activities, and feel they have been harmed in some way, or that their enjoyment of the service has been hampered, are limited to reporting such behaviors with explanations to the Compliance department at the typical abuse@ address.
The Compliance department is supposed to investigate the complaint(s), and if grounds are sufficient, take actions that run from "warning the offending subscriber" to "terminating the offending subscriber's account".
To me, these constitute guarantees and/or assurances by each party to the other that one will not engage in disallowed behaviors or activities, and the other will act to see to it that such behaviors or activities will not continue.
Then, in sections 7 and 8 of the contract, the service effectively negates any such remedies, nullifies its liabilities, and makes all remedies meaningless by stating, in effect, that it has the sole discretion on whether or not to act on any or all complaints, and the subscribers to the service have no right of expectation that their complaints will be handled properly, and their only recourse is accepting these terms or cancelling their service.
Is this strictly legal? Can this "contract" be contested, and if so, on what specific grounds?
Thank you.
Under section 4 of the contract, certain behaviors and and activities by subscribers to the service are strictly prohibited by the service. Remedies for subscribers who encounter such behaviors and activities, and feel they have been harmed in some way, or that their enjoyment of the service has been hampered, are limited to reporting such behaviors with explanations to the Compliance department at the typical abuse@ address.
The Compliance department is supposed to investigate the complaint(s), and if grounds are sufficient, take actions that run from "warning the offending subscriber" to "terminating the offending subscriber's account".
To me, these constitute guarantees and/or assurances by each party to the other that one will not engage in disallowed behaviors or activities, and the other will act to see to it that such behaviors or activities will not continue.
Then, in sections 7 and 8 of the contract, the service effectively negates any such remedies, nullifies its liabilities, and makes all remedies meaningless by stating, in effect, that it has the sole discretion on whether or not to act on any or all complaints, and the subscribers to the service have no right of expectation that their complaints will be handled properly, and their only recourse is accepting these terms or cancelling their service.
Is this strictly legal? Can this "contract" be contested, and if so, on what specific grounds?
Thank you.