In an email sent to customers earlier this week viewed by Engadget, the company announced that it had made updates to the “Dispute Resolution and Arbitration section” of its terms of service that would prevent customers from filing class action lawsuits.
    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      11 months ago

      it should be noted no contract can bar seeking legal remedy… It’s like trying to bring an NDA to force when someone goes to the cops.

      • cokeslutgarbage@lemmy.world
        7·
        11 months ago

        I just learned this the hard way. I just got laid off and rejected the severance check because in order to get it, we had to sign a thing that said we waived our right to ever sue them for anything

  • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world
    24·
    11 months ago

    Edit: added Axios link, removed double quote for Axios paragraphs

    Forbidding people from filing class action lawsuit, as Axios notes, hides information about the proceedings from the public since affected parties typically attempt to resolve disputes with arbitrators in private. Experts, such as Chicago-Kent College of Law professor Nancy Kim, an online contractor expert, told Axios that changing its terms wouldn’t be enough to protect 23andMe in court.

    https://www.axios.com/2023/12/07/23andme-terms-of-service-update-data-breach

    The company did not publicly reveal the full extent of the breach until around two months after it occurred.

    The latest: At least two law firms are pursuing a class action against 23andMe.

    Canada-based law firms YLaw and KND Complex Litigation have proposed a class-action lawsuit against the company in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

    Of note: In emails notifying customers of the terms of service change, the company has said people are able to opt out if they email “legal@23andme.com” within 30 days of receiving the notice.

    However, the updated terms of service requires customers to email a different address, “arbitrationoptout@23andme.com.”

      • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world
        8·
        11 months ago

        True!

        Reminds me of other industries that have immunity against being sued in court.

        Companies also try to make it seem for the workers, if you sue company, that they have to be handled internally (scare tatic?).

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          7·
          11 months ago

          The latter would be an arbitration agreement, and unfortunately I think they’re enforceable. They make you sign an contract waiving your rights and agreeing to arbitration.

            • squiblet@kbin.social
              2·
              11 months ago

              They’re considered generally enforceable.

              https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/08/the-enforceability-of-employment-arbitration-agreements/

              On May 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court, in a long-awaited decision, held that employment arbitration agreements with class action waivers requiring individual arbitration are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), notwithstanding Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”), which protects employees’ rights to engage in concerted activities.

              But they might not be. Sure, if I had some case related to this I would get legal advice.

              https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/practical-guidance-journal/b/pa/posts/drafting-enforceable-arbitration-agreements-hottest-issue-in-contract-law

              Arbitration agreements are supposed to ensure that disputes are resolved outside of court, and that’s why it’s an irony of almost cosmic proportions that “the enforceability of arbitration agreements is likely ‘the single most litigated contractual issue’ today

              https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ties-bind-you-arbitration-agreement-enforceable-and-binding

              But are they enforceable?

              The answer, fortunately, is yes, but it is important to keep in mind the most basic characteristic of arbitration agreements - they are contracts. Both Federal and State laws foster a strong policy favoring arbitration, but each provides that the enforceability of agreements requiring arbitration for work-related disputes will be determined by applicable state law regarding contract principles.
              The majority of published case law suggests that arbitration agreements are most commonly challenged on the basis that they lack mutuality of contract, lack adequate consideration for the contract, or are unconscionable. These tripping blocks can be avoided by drafting a carefully-worded arbitration agreement and providing employees ample notice and opportunity to review the agreement.

              The latter is why 23andMe is giving people the chance to review the new TOS first. It also is probably different for a TOS vs an employment contract.

    • Diotima@kbin.social
      19·
      11 months ago

      Except that’s not true. Somehow, 23andme missed the almost certainly anomalous activity on thier network that lead to the extraction of 6.9 million users’ data. Missing the activity associated with the massive data dump, designing thier system to allow for that? 100% thier fault.

      One should not be able to use a set of hacked accounts to dump that much data. That’s a design flaw.

    • SeaJ@lemm.eeOP
      7·
      11 months ago

      As someone in that data breach (not from reused passwords) and of Jewish descent (the seeming target of the hack), I’m going to say it is not blown out of proportion. They previously had no limits on failed login attempts which is pathetic from a security standpoint. They still don’t require 2FA. They say they courage it but it’s not like they bug you about it.

      So they failed at multiple points prior to the hack and still fail after. They do have a limit on failed logins now so they have done part off the base level of security.