Online Pharmacy Madness

[Ananisapta]

I am in NC. This morning I attempted to log in with my online pharmacy provider. They refused access unless I would agree to a 14-page agreement that said, in essence, "You agree that we may modify this agreement any way we wish without notice to you and the only way you will know what you've agreed to is to reread this agreement in its entirety before each time you use the service." Other provisions required me to agree to personally indemnify them for any harm whatsoever to any person that might be construed as consequent to my use of their service.

In my opinion as a mental health professional, this agreement is totally beyond the reading skill of any normal person, but the site serves Medicare recipients along with a broad array of the general public. I must admit I've gotten used to these sorts of one-sided agreements, but this one seems especially absurd under the circumstances.

What recourse does the general public have from unreasonable agreements like the one I described? Do courts take these seriously? Does one in ten users actually read them before signing? One in a hundred? Are there no relevant regulations to protect Medicare recipients from signing away their lives in exchange for a 90-day supply of baby aspirin?

 

[FlyingRon]

Almost certainly the "changes" aren't in force unless you receive subsequent notice. This really isn't any different from what you have now, they're free to change the agreement at will most likely anyhow. You don't like the terms, find another way to order your drugs.

 

[Ananisapta]

Changes

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the following:

(Provider Name) Inc. may modify this Agreement at any time, and such modifications will be effective
immediately upon either posting of the modified agreement on this Web site or by notifying You (as
defined herein below).
You agree to review the agreement periodically to be aware of such modifications and Your
continued access or use of the Service will be deemed Your conclusive acceptance of the modified
agreement.​

 

[Taxing Matters]

What recourse does the general public have from unreasonable agreements like the one I described?

What is “unreasonable” is a matter of opinion, and opinions on that may well vary. Unless your state has law (either statutory or case law) that states the kind of modification provision this agreement has is unenforceable then the provision is valid. If the customer finds that to be unacceptable the customer may cease doing business with this company and conduct business with some other firm instead.

Do courts take these seriously?

Yes, they do. They look at the provisions of the contract and then determine based on the applicable law whether the provisions being challenged are enforceable or not. Contracts are a matter of choice, so if one does not like the deal they may decline to enter into the contract. For that reason, only a relatively small set of contract provisions are held to be invalid.

Does one in ten users actually read them before signing?

One in a hundred?

I’d wager most people do not read most online agreements that they accept. But they have the opportunity to read them and if they do not then that is no one’s fault but their own if the agreement contains something they do not like. I tell every client to read every proposed contract and understand the contract before signing or otherwise accepting the contract. Because if you do not do that you may well find yourself bound to something you do not want.

 

[sudenzia]

What recourse does the general public have from unreasonable agreements like the one I described? Do courts take these seriously? Does one in ten users actually read them before signing? One in a hundred? Are there no relevant regulations to protect Medicare recipients from signing away their lives in exchange for a 90-day supply of baby aspirin?

These are called adhesion contracts and they are enforceable and taken seriously. Perhaps not every provision in every adhesion contract is enforceable. No contract is going to safeguard a pharmacist from gross negligence. I do not have any data, but my experience tells me that most people do not read them. To what degree of "most" is anyone's guess but I suspect it is the vast majority of people.

Adhesion contracts are also called "take it or leave it" contracts. Their primary function is to reduce transactional costs. (Perhaps the online pharmacy is cheaper because it limits its liability in ways that others don't.) Based on the alternative name, you can probably guess the recourse is to "leave it." If they don't even want to be bothered reading the multipage document, they don't have to! Good news is, there are a whole lot of pharmacies in North Carolina!

I understand your point, but surely it isn't actually coming close to "signing your life away."

 

[quincy]

These are called adhesion contracts and they are enforceable and taken seriously. Perhaps not every provision in every adhesion contract is enforceable. No contract is going to safeguard a pharmacist from gross negligence. I do not have any data, but my experience tells me that most people do not read them. To what degree of "most" is anyone's guess but I suspect it is the vast majority of people.

Adhesion contracts are also called "take it or leave it" contracts. Their primary function is to reduce transactional costs. (Perhaps the online pharmacy is cheaper because it limits its liability in ways that others don't.) Based on the alternative name, you can probably guess the recourse is to "leave it." If they don't even want to be bothered reading the multipage document, they don't have to! Good news is, there are a whole lot of pharmacies in North Carolina!

I understand your point, but surely it isn't actually coming close to "signing your life away."

Sudenzia, please look at posting dates before posting.

This is an older thread. We prefer on this forum that older threads are not revived for questions or comments by anyone other than the original poster.

Thanks.