News/topic idea: Facebook TOS invalid and Google global takedown order

Good morning,

Up here in the great white north of Canada our Supreme Court Justices have recently made a couple interesting decisions.

I think would make good topics, or at least news items worthy of your introspection.

  1. Facebook’s click wrap terms of service were judged not enforceable by virtue of Facebook’s power vs. individual users (inability to negotiate terms, forum selection) and some rights just can’t be overwritten by a contract (like privacy); Supreme Court Rules Facebook Can’t Contract Out of B.C. Privacy Law and Why Clicking “I Agree” May No Longer Mean You Agree to Everything
  2. Google was instructed to remove global search results by a court in British Columbia and the SC upheld the judgement. Global Internet Takedown Orders Come to Canada: Supreme Court Upholds International Removal of Google Search Results and No Monitoring & No Liability: What the Supreme Court’s Google v. Equustek Decision Does Not Do

I have to admit I totally agree with both decisions. It might seem like the court over stepped it’s jurisdiction but I think they did a job of justifying their decisions.

In the Facebook case the justices highlighted the fact that certain services, like Facebook, have become unavoidable if we want to be active participants online.

In the Google case, the court decided the inconvenience to Google was minimal and they already had mechanisms in place to handle it but the impact to the claimant was significant because most of their sales were outside of Canada - so limiting the link removal to Google.CA was not the point. And requiring the claimant to file against Google in every country Google operates would have been unrealistic.

1 Like

Here’s another link relating to this suggestion for those who want more context.

1 Like

That’s about the only thing I would take issue with. I don’t facebook and, quite honestly, never felt the need to communicate online with many of the same people people I dodge calls from in real life anyhow. Yeah, that was kinda insensitive, but it’s the truth nonetheless. Anyone I actually want to talk to knows to email me, call me, or pm me where I hang out.

This is happy news that should be a given for all nations. Also, thanks for adding Cancon :slight_smile:

Not just all nations but all services too!

If this case is considered a precedent then others as well, like Twitter, Google, Netflix, etc could suddenly find portions of their click-wrapped contracts invalid and/or un-enforceable.

It will be interesting to see who is targeted by the next lawsuit. And what the impact will be. It would be unfortunate if services started to cut features in Canada rather than adapt their terms of service.

Y’know, I could actually see people like Dorsey using this as an “excuse” to push back against the corporate bean counters and sharks :slight_smile:

cut features in Canada rather than adapt their terms of service.

Well…yeah…there are also sports bars out there where if you want a Saturday shift you better be damn good at giving head to get ahead (used to waitress, some mangers actually try that shit! :0). I feel the same way about that as I do my software Freedoms…I’ll just go without supposed benefit xyz and keep my dignity thankyouverymuch!

And here’s a dissenting opinion, noting that the Canadian Supreme Court took pains to point out the defendant was engaged in extranational intellectual property theft, and the extraordinary nature of the injunction was not only required, but also compatible (i.e. not in conflict with laws in other territories).

The opinion also points out that dictatorial nations won’t usually ask for permission to engage in censorship, and freer nations would be constrained from using this ruling as precedent due to the narrow nature of the decision.

EDIT: helps if you include the link:

1 Like

Yeah, I totally agree with the judge’s decision in the Google case (and in the Facebook case but for different reasons).

And I hate the slippery slope argument people have made against the decision. The world always ends in flames when start down that path!

As you said, the judges were very specific with this decision - intellectual property is widely recognized and the theft of is almost universally condemned. There was nothing ideological about this case.

I didn’t have a chance to read the entire article you linked to, but I’ll try to get back to it.


Please respect our code of conduct which is simple: don't be a dick.