Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3166010495> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 65 of
65
with 100 items per page.
- W3166010495 abstract "To work, go to school, shop and even to communicate with each other, Americans live by the terms of myriad tech company contracts. Indeed, any time someone presses the “I agree” button that pops up on a website—the clicking of which is required to continue on—they have entered into such a contract. Rarely read by the consumer and often objectively one-sided in the company’s favor, these contracts contain all the terms that will govern the consumer relationship to the company, including, among other things, how the company will control the use and sale of that consumer’s personal data. Given the growing consumer discontent with these non-negotiated, digital contracts—the breadth of the data collection policies, the inadequate notice about important terms, and the apparent unequal enforcement of what should be standard (equally applied) terms—it is surprising that there has been so little pushback on their enforceability. To be sure, there are calls for comprehensive privacy legislation that targets objectionable data collection terms. While such legislation is necessary and welcome, there may be an under-utilized ally for consumers already well-established in our legal system—the doctrine of unconscionability. Correctly applied, this Article argues that unconscionability can serve as an effective support to privacy legislation and can protect consumers against egregious digital, contracting practices.This Article first sets out the historical roots of the unconscionability doctrine, including discussion of two seminal cases—Williams v. Walker-Thomas and A&M Produce. This Article then highlights current contract concerns—such as privacy protections and discriminatory enforcement—and examines current digital contract problems concerning Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and Uber and how unconscionability might apply to the benefit of consumers. To test if unconscionbility is sufficiently robust to curb contractual excesses, this Article presents and analyzes a novel and unique dataset of over 7,000 unconscionability cases. As part of the extensive data analysis, 814 cases with unconscionaility claims were read, analyzed, and catalogued to determine the success and contours of the courts’ decisions. Finally, this Article presents a possible legislative “upgrade” to the doctrine of unconscionability to refocus, where necessary, courts’ deployment of it in cases of digital contracting." @default.
- W3166010495 created "2021-06-22" @default.
- W3166010495 creator A5004782176 @default.
- W3166010495 date "2021-02-01" @default.
- W3166010495 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
- W3166010495 title "Upgrading Unconscionability: A Common Law Ally for a Digital World" @default.
- W3166010495 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
- W3166010495 type Work @default.
- W3166010495 sameAs 3166010495 @default.
- W3166010495 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W3166010495 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
- W3166010495 hasAuthorship W3166010495A5004782176 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConcept C108827166 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConcept C112698675 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConcept C2779777834 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConcept C2779913896 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConcept C37323507 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConceptScore W3166010495C108827166 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConceptScore W3166010495C112698675 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConceptScore W3166010495C144133560 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConceptScore W3166010495C162324750 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConceptScore W3166010495C17744445 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConceptScore W3166010495C190253527 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConceptScore W3166010495C199539241 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConceptScore W3166010495C2776211767 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConceptScore W3166010495C2777351106 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConceptScore W3166010495C2779777834 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConceptScore W3166010495C2779913896 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConceptScore W3166010495C37323507 @default.
- W3166010495 hasConceptScore W3166010495C41008148 @default.
- W3166010495 hasLocation W31660104951 @default.
- W3166010495 hasOpenAccess W3166010495 @default.
- W3166010495 hasPrimaryLocation W31660104951 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W1511712564 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W1538446335 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W1564426901 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W1637458542 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W180142698 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W1848257607 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W1898773973 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W1996640892 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W2207417587 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W2898481575 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W2971864887 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W2994354162 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W3107524348 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W3121945992 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W3122314044 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W3123121197 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W3125654379 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W3125704798 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W3126147148 @default.
- W3166010495 hasRelatedWork W336840043 @default.
- W3166010495 isParatext "false" @default.
- W3166010495 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W3166010495 magId "3166010495" @default.
- W3166010495 workType "article" @default.