Comments on: Unconscionable ToS for Second Life Updated

By: Law-Person

Law-Person — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:21:24 +0000

A follow up to my previous post.

Linden can, and always will be able to, be sued in any state in the nation. They have met the minimum contact rules set fourth and International Shoe V California and it progency since the 1950′s. They are an online company, advertise nationally, and its expected their product will be used be people all over the US. Pretty much any company can be sued in any state. This all has to do with the horribly complicated concept of Personal Jurisdiction.

By: Law-Person

Law-Person — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:17:28 +0000

Linden puts in this clause because once you agree to it, you purposely avail yourself to the laws of California and their court system. This ToS is put there for the advantage of Linden only – doubly, if they decide to sue you, you have agreed to conform to the laws of California (see Burger King v Radiwicz). Its all about the 4 part Personal Jurisdiction rules that started with Pennoyer V Neff. If they didnt put this clause in, you could argue that Linden has purposefully availed itself to you, solicited business in your home state, and file in your home state under the two prong test of Minimum Contacts rule (International Shoe v Washington).

Arbitration is good, but in Linden’s case, it frees them from some certain lawsuits. Arbitrators cant award puntive damages (except if it’s a federal manner), but it would be hard to make an argument that Linden purposely tried to make you suffer.

I knew i went to law school for a reason!

By: SqueezeOne Pow

SqueezeOne Pow — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:35:16 +0000

@Nexus

My understanding is that estate covenants and private sim rules override the TOS unless there are parts that conflict.

You’re well within your right to make a “red shirt and green pants only” rule for your sim punishable by banning, but you couldn’t make a “wear a yellow star of David” or “Swastikas only” rule since that conflicts with the overall TOS.

I’m not sure what land tools would be needed other than what’s already available, though. Most action against TOS violations are dealt with by sending an AR to LL for them to ignore or handle personally. Not much automation can be done with “there’s a giant swastika avatar walking through the area” complaints.

By: nexus

nexus — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:15:33 +0000

If an estate owner takes LL’s TOS and replaces the parties named, and uses it as the TOS to their estate, does LL inherit the TOS, thus obviating the need for setting the land to be restricted using LL tools, but instead using restricted within the estate itself? So if a resident comes to an estate, and clicks an agreement upon landing at the TP point, does that supercede any other agreement,and become the one in force? Do TOS agreements scale fractally? I would rather do that, essentially replacing the law of the grid with the law of the estate, passing liability down the line to the resident, as they do.

By: Lindoid Interruptus

Lindoid Interruptus — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:47:22 +0000

I am guessing — and I hasten to say that I’m NOT a lawyer — that the bit about bringing suit ONLY in SF is going to turn out to be another “unconscionable” part of the TOS, next time a suit is brought in an “improper” venue. (/me checks bags and gets ready for the exodus). Such cluelessness.

For added amusement, just try following any of the links on the Aristotle/Integrity webpage. Those that aren’t broken are just downright creepy. Yes, I’ll trust Linden Labs as soon as I learn my credit card company has stopped listing them as an online pharmacy. NO WONDER Phil wears that shiny codpiece. Generic Viagra overdose. Someone should tell that boy to keep out of the company warehouses.