Minors can't waive rights. Or, in theory they can't waive rights because they don't have capacity. That's my understanding
In my country nobody can waive rights, by default no contract is able to take any rights from you
You know, like a reasonable place would. Not this "rights are inaliable!" Unless you do x, y, or z.
It used to be like that in the US. It was not until the 90s into the 00's that employers were allowed to make employees sign away their right to sue and instead use binding arbitration of the employer's choosing, or manufacturers and retailers forcing consumers to waive their rights to sue in purchasing the product, and so forth.
Judges used to throw them out. And if a contract had egregious language, it could invalidate the entire contract not just the part that is illegal.
Since the federalist society conquered the courts all of that changed.
Thank you for pointing out how much damage they have done to our legal system and in turn our society, or what remains of it.
Not sure how this gets fixed without some kind of major probably terrible event. Fixing the Supreme Court is probably the first step, but kicking them out in local elections is crucial too.
I'm splitting hairs a lil bit - you're pretty much correct. Minors are not citizens, so they don't have rights. Minors are wards of the State. They under State protection, and as such don't have the ability to forgo that protection, until they turn 18.
This is all wrong.
As long as the minor has US citizenship (through naturalization, parents, ect) they have citizenship. We can see this with ICE deporting non US citizen minors (there might be a rare exceptiom, but those are outliers).
Minors have constitutional rights as they have been ruled by the US supreme court to protest politically in schools (as long as it doesn't interfer with school operation or other students). They even have the ability for the second amendment as long as they are provided permission from the parent and is under adult supervision (hunting, target practice, compitition). Also still protected against unconstitutional searches or seizures.
Minors are not wards of the state unless they are sentenced to a correctional facility, some kind of state mental hospital, or orphinege. Children are under control of their parents unless some substantial reason (parent or guardian death, judification, extreme mental health).
As the other poster stated, children have protections such ad labor laws, protections against military service, protections against adult criminal trials (unless ruled by a judge).
(some of this will vary state by state, but most is the same)
Minors (except immigrants who have not been naturalized) are citzens, and they do have rights. For example, minors can be issued passports, and cannot lawfully be deported. That's because they're citizens.
Also, you can't just walk down the street and kill a minor. That's an example of a right that everyone has, regardless of whether they're citizens. Generally, the Constitution refers to such people as persons rather than citizens.
The vast majority of minors are not wards of the state, the only exception being those who are declared wards of the state through explicit legal procedures.
So nothing you said was correct.
The real rationale for Roblox being full of shit is that minors cannot execute contracts. And there are what are called unconscionable contracts, which are invalid even if the signatory is not a minor.
Not a single thing you said is correct.
That's what common sense would dictate
any mention of "waiving your rights" should always automatically be null, no matter who it concerns. by definition it places the corporation above the law. Might as well let corporations authorize people to kill, steal and do other crimes if that is allowed.
we need global capital punishment for corporations
You can't sign any rights away in the EU.
It's great because I know my rights here and I can just accept any terms knowing they can't fuck me over no matter what I accept.
Do you have any concrete examples of this being enforced in practice?
All I see:
Our right to privacy (freedom right pillar) is literally daily being violeted 1000 times over and the most I have ever seen happen is a slap on the wrist 0.01% of yearly revenue fine that didn't change anything. Companies can fuck you over all they like unless you have a 10million € army of lawyers...
Also how is it going in Germany with the Palestine protester that had been locked in solitary confinement (known torture) for 23 hours per day for the past almost year after a show trial kangaroo court where they wouldn't allow even any independent record of the trial inside (violation of both dignity and justice pillars)
There is precious little enforcement of many rights, so we absolutely cannot take them for granted and have to fight for them on every front.
Not a lawyer, but if i hire someone to kill someone and put that in writing, I can't sue that person for not doing his job because the contract has no legal value. Not sure on the details, but if i understand correctly a contract between two people cannot cover things that are outside the law. Meaning the law of contracts (like TOS) is inferior to the law of killing people. Seems like this is not true for America, but here i've heard of consumers winning lawsuits based on this principle.
We do need global punishment for corporations, but it would not be the only solution: corporation have to abide to local laws.
Children aren't legally allowed to enter into contracts. How are their lawyers this stupid? Are they just getting their arguments from chatbots?
They probably have fine print that says children must have their parent's permission to sign up, and think that covers them
I'm no expert, but my Business Law professors were absolutely adamant about the fact that a minor can never execute a legal agreement and there are no exceptions.
Even if the parent leaves a contract out with a stamped envelope and tells their kid to sign it and mail it off, the contract is null and void. If my professors were correct and things haven't changed, I can't imagine a child can waive their (or their parents) rights by clicking a checkbox either.
"Waiving of rights" should be automatically null and void if it happens only as part of some TOS (or GTC or similar situations).
There needs to be strict scrutiny applied by courts to TOS. And other similar legal terms (ask a lawyer what they are, not me) which all say basically only the obvious things that shouldn't need to be stated at all can be put in them.
If you need more than the basic protection the law already provides for you, then you don't use a TOS, you need a real contract signed by both parties, with both parties having a lawyer on hand to ensure the terms are understood and really agreeable.
There should be standard TOS clauses that are approved based on their legality and enforceability that click or use based "contracts" should be limited to. Or at the very least, they should need to be legally ratified rather than only looked at closely if legally challenged.
Like that whole "you waived our liability for real world shit by using Disney+" should have resulted in the disbarment of any lawyers that wrote, approved, and tried to argue it in court when it came up and punitive damages to Disney for even trying.
This argument would be laughed out of the building. An 8 year old cannot enter into a contract.
So that deal I made with the devil to swap my soul for a monster truck when I was a kid isn't legally enforceable?!
Legally? No. Spiritually? Still probably no.
I'm confused, even if the girl could waive her rights and that is legally a valid argument - she is not the one who's excersizing her right to sue the company right? Does that right extend beyond death or would such a contract also extend to others who have not signed anything?
Also what the fuck, their stance is they can't be sued, instead of they're not guilty. I mean i'm not guilty and the parents can't sue me, but if they wanted to my defense would surely be that i had nothing to do with it - not that they can't sue me.
The fast talking lawyers were hoping no one would notice what you just pointed out.
It depends on the judge. Click-wrapped ToS, EULAs and privacy policies are a known dark pattern:
They're longer than Shakespearean plays.
They're difficult to read even at a college level.
They're often presented in a tiny window with difficult controls.
They're presented suddenly and mid process, often as part of an already lengthy string of steps. Often the user is eager to just move on.
Some judges have recognized this and do not see click-wrapped contracts as binding, especially when the person clicking them can be a child, or a cat, or a computer glitch.
But then a lot of judges were appointed through a willful organized effort to put pro-business judges on the bench, and will rule in the favor of companies over individuals regardless of the circumstances.
And some, like the majority of SCOTUS judges will literally make stuff up so they can legislate from the bench as they've been ~~paid~~ bribed to do.
you mean like Uncle Clarence?
You mean Uncle Thomas?
"He's one of the good ones"
His wife's family actually said that. He's such a self-hating fella that it didn't bother him.
Roblox really seems to be the end boss of evil game companies. The competition is certainly steep but they never cease to amaze me with how low they‘re willing to go for a few bucks more.
By being born you accept being bound by the following terms and conditions....
To add some important context:
Seitz is suing the company, along with two others, for Audree's death, which occurred one week after her 13th birthday.
and the mom is also suing Discord and TikTok.
Relevant yes, but isn't the age at which she signed the 'contract' even more relevant? Crazy young age to end your life though. Can't imagine what that's like.
Regardless of the age of someone entering into a contract (by clicking a checkbox)
Aren’t there certain rights you can’t waive, regardless of age?
fuck roblox
I don't believe arbitration agreements should be legal at all, but with how conservative US courts are right now, I doubt we'll see it overturned.
Is it their stance? The article says the mother “placed parental controls” on the child’s account. This means the mother had an account too and agreed to the terms as well.
TOS can't protect a company from legal requirements, and I'm not clear on what the legal requirements are in terms of safeguarding and content moderation but my initial hunch is that they're very lackluster. I hope that the suit will bring attention to this issue with legislative bodies, but I suspect that's the most that can be realistically hoped for.
no. next question?
Well not shocking as this is the same company that is cool with child gambling, child "dating" and well a lot of terrible child things.
A minor literally can't do this in the USA. You scumbags are Fucked.
I'll click on your stupid little agreement button to play my mindless game and I still deny all of your inane fine-print that I didn't read anyways. If shit like this is legally binding then it's already game over.
Only in AmeriKa. What about the parents?
I saw the article on Reddit, the kid bypassed the Parent Locks, or the more likely scenario is that the 'kid zone' of Roblox has plenty of unhinged weirdoes thst know how to trespass into the kid zone.
The poor kid was manipulated into offing herself.
As a panel of expert witnesses, bring in more 8-year-olds to demonstrate how to play Roblox. Add a mandatory checkbox that includes an attestation stating that the company is criminally liable and a requirement that these children must kick the entire C-suite to death.
Let's see how binding check boxes still are, and to what degree minors are expected to process and follow their commitments.
Sounds like she was groomed by 764/o9a types. Typical modus operandi.
IMO they’re nothing short of a continuation and expansion of the original MKUltra. This time to horrify the public into passing mandatory online ID laws which would be very useful for the agency. That and they create a pre-selected group of amoral sadist monsters the agency can use for various purposes after making contact.
They’re aided by these profit hungry tech corps. Though it’s astonishing and a serious tech literacy problem that the mother let her have a discord account when those are not moderated and not for kids. These tech companies should all go bankrupt but they’ll all have us scanning IDs for everything soon enough instead. Problem is these o9a types have lots of groomers who are underage teens themselves so such measures don’t really put a stop to it.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
