Hidden EULA language: Difference between revisions

(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

~~"EULA roofie" describes the practice of hiding contentious terms within an~~ [[End-user license agreement]] (~~EULA~~). The ~~term~~ applies to situations where such terms, if made clear upfront, might cause a customer to second-guess their purchase~~. The term was coined by consumer rights advocate [[wikipedia:Louis_Rossmann|Louis Rossmann]]<sup>[source?]</sup>.~~

'''[[End-user license agreement|End-User License Agreements]]''' are often purposefully obfuscated through legal and technical language to hide terms and permissions that negatively affect the consumer. YouTuber and right-to-repair advocate, [[wikipedia:Louis_Rossmann|Louis Rossman]], coined the term "'''EULA roofie'''" to describe this anti-consumer behavior, equating the hidden language for the purpose of securing an unfavorable agreement to drugging someone (''roofying)'' for personal gain. The concept of hidden language within a EULA applies to situations where such terms, if made clear upfront, might cause a customer to second-guess their purchase.

This term highlights the unethical business practice of "manufacturing consent" for terms which a reasonable and informed customer might reject. It also emphasizes the erosion of informed consent through shaming and conformity.

By hiding contentious or unconscionable terms in dense legal documents, manufacturers exploit:

#the consumer's lack of proficiency in understanding legal documents, and

#the impracticality of reading long documents in order to meet one's ~~basic human~~ needs.

#the impracticality of reading long documents in order to meet one's needs.

==Core Concept==

Unfavorable language hidden within an end-user license agreement may be understood by three key deceptive practices:

~~The "EULA roofie" applies~~ to ~~individuals~~ and ~~corporations that utilize these~~ practices ~~to secure and manufacture consent under these false pretenses~~.

#Burying unattractive terms deep within an end-user license agreement, while avoiding their mention in marketing material and customer-facing interfaces.

#Making the full terms impractical or impossible for the customer to meaningfully review.

#Pointing to the End User License Agreement as a justification for unpopular and unfair practices.

~~According to Rossmann, just as drugging someone ("roofying") to secure agreement is indefensible, so too is the act~~ of ~~concealing ethically or morally questionable terms in the fine print of a contract. The term "~~EULA roofie" attempts to draw a greater degree of societal scorn, scrutiny, and condemnation towards these actions, as they are seen at best as a minor legal nuisance rather than a disregard for informed consent and human rights.

== Types of hidden EULA language ==

==~~Core Concept~~==

=== Redefining "buy" and "own" ===

~~The term~~ "EULA ~~roofie" describes three key deceptive practices:~~

Some companies attempt to redefine common terms such as "buy" and "own" through legal obfuscation within the EULA.

~~#Burying unattractive terms deep within an End User License Agreement (while avoiding mention of them in marketing materials and customer~~-~~facing interfaces).~~

=== "Neutral third-party" arbitration ===

~~#Making~~ the ~~full terms impractical or impossible for~~ the ~~customer to meaningfully review~~.

Many companies employ [[forced arbitration]] as a way to negate the consumer's right to pursue legal action against the company when they've been wronged. They hide this fact by using language to make it seem that the company is being fair by outsourcing issues in the company-consumer relationship to a "fair" and "nonjudgmental" third party who may act as a mediator during disputes. While this sounds neutral, objective, and even fair on the surface, it neglects the ways in which the company uses arbiters in their favor. Additionally, it completely removes the consumer's right to a class-action lawsuit in cases where the company's bad practice affects dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of other consumers.

~~#Pointing~~ to the ~~End User License Agreement~~ as a ~~justification for unpopular practices~~.

==Notable Examples==

Line 30:

Line 32:

Placing disclaimers such as "We may take away and remove television and movies you bought & paid for at any time, because purchase doesn't mean purchase anymore" next to the "Add to cart" button would understandably negatively affect sales. Therefore, Sony buries this information on page 21 of their Terms of Service.

===Smart Appliance Data Collection & Third-Party Data Sharing===

[[File:LG ThinQ app terms of service part 1.webp|alt=LG ThinQ app terms of service from July 2024, for use of an LG smart washing machine|thumb|LG ThinQ app terms of service from July 2024, for use of an LG smart washing machine]]

[[File:LG ThinQ app TOS.webp|alt=LG ThinQ app terms of service from July 2024, for use of an LG smart washing machine: part 2 of 3.|thumb|LG ThinQ app terms of service from July 2024, for use of an LG smart washing machine: part 2 of 3.]]

~~[[File:LG ThinQ app terms of service from July 2024, for use of an LG smart washing machine- part 3 of 3..webp|thumb]]~~

LG Electronics (among others) require users to accept extensive terms of service and privacy policies to use the "smart" features on home appliances, such as washing machines.

Line 39:

Line 38:

A consumer has to read the complete Privacy Policy (see attached images below) to learn that LG collects their personal data and shares it with their advertising partners. Futhermore, this Privacy Policy is only shown to the customer once they have bought the LG product.

===Disney's Wrongful Death Lawsuit===

In a wrongful-death lawsuit, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on 5 October 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death<ref>{{Cite web |last=Piccolo |first=Jeffrey J. |date=02 Aug 2024 |title=AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE |url=https://consumerrights.wiki/images/9/9d/AUGUST_2ND_RESPONSE.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Treisman |first=Rachel |date=14 Aug 2024 |title=Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240821192924/https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney |archive-date=21 Aug 2024 |access-date=13 Jul 2025 |website=NPR}}</ref>.

In May 2024, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed from court and sent to [[Forced Arbitration|arbitration]], citing two separate [[End-user license agreement|user agreements]]:

#The [[Disney+]] user agreement Piccolo accepted in 2019 when signing up for a free trial to Disney's streaming service on his [[wikipedia:PlayStation|PlayStation]]

#Terms accepted when purchasing (ultimately unused) Epcot tickets through the My Disney Experience app in September 2023

This example shows how Disney attempted to use terms buried within a streaming-service agreement to deny a consumer's right to sue over an unrelated wrongful-death case at a restaurant. Disney argued that because Tangsuan had clicked "Agree & Continue" when signing up for the Disney+ streaming service, she was bound by an arbitration clause for any legal claims against the company or its affiliates. This, they argued, included the food served by a restaurant on their premises that killed her even though the issue was unrelated to the streaming service.

Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was that the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Valinsky |first=Jordan |date=14 Aug 2024 |title=Disney wants wrongful death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+ |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240815002807/https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html |archive-date=15 Aug 2024 |access-date=13 Jul 2025 |website=CNN}}</ref>

==Consumer Impact==

Line 65:

Line 76:

==Resources==

*[https://tosdr.org/en/ TOSDR] &~~emdash~~; Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies

*[https://tosdr.org/en/ TOSDR] — Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies

*[https://~~tosback~~.org/ ~~TOSBack~~] &~~emdash~~; Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies

*[https://opentermsarchive.org/en/ Open Terms Archive] — Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies

==References==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-"EULA roofie" describes the practice of hiding contentious terms within an [[End-user license agreement]] (EULA). The term applies to situations where such terms, if made clear upfront, might cause a customer to second-guess their purchase. The term was coined by consumer rights advocate [[wikipedia:Louis_Rossmann|Louis Rossmann]]<sup>[source?]</sup>.
+'''[[End-user license agreement|End-User License Agreements]]''' are often purposefully obfuscated through legal and technical language to hide terms and permissions that negatively affect the consumer. YouTuber and right-to-repair advocate, [[wikipedia:Louis_Rossmann|Louis Rossman]], coined the term "'''EULA roofie'''" to describe this anti-consumer behavior, equating the hidden language for the purpose of securing an unfavorable agreement to drugging someone (''roofying)'' for personal gain. The concept of hidden language within a EULA applies to situations where such terms, if made clear upfront, might cause a customer to second-guess their purchase.
-This term highlights the unethical business practice of "manufacturing consent" for terms which a reasonable and informed customer might reject. It also emphasizes the erosion of informed consent through shaming and conformity.
 By hiding contentious or unconscionable terms in dense legal documents, manufacturers exploit:
 #the consumer's lack of proficiency in understanding legal documents, and
-#the impracticality of reading long documents in order to meet one's basic human needs.
+#the impracticality of reading long documents in order to meet one's needs.
+==Core Concept==
+Unfavorable language hidden within an end-user license agreement may be understood by three key deceptive practices:
-The "EULA roofie" applies to individuals and corporations that utilize these practices to secure and manufacture consent under these false pretenses.
+#Burying unattractive terms deep within an end-user license agreement, while avoiding their mention in marketing material and customer-facing interfaces.
+#Making the full terms impractical or impossible for the customer to meaningfully review.
+#Pointing to the End User License Agreement as a justification for unpopular and unfair practices.
-According to Rossmann, just as drugging someone ("roofying") to secure agreement is indefensible, so too is the act of concealing ethically or morally questionable terms in the fine print of a contract. The term "EULA roofie" attempts to draw a greater degree of societal scorn, scrutiny, and condemnation towards these actions, as they are seen at best as a minor legal nuisance rather than a disregard for informed consent and human rights.
+== Types of hidden EULA language ==
-==Core Concept==
+=== Redefining "buy" and "own" ===
-The term "EULA roofie" describes three key deceptive practices:
+Some companies attempt to redefine common terms such as "buy" and "own" through legal obfuscation within the EULA.
-#Burying unattractive terms deep within an End User License Agreement (while avoiding mention of them in marketing materials and customer-facing interfaces).
+=== "Neutral third-party" arbitration ===
-#Making the full terms impractical or impossible for the customer to meaningfully review.
+Many companies employ [[forced arbitration]] as a way to negate the consumer's right to pursue legal action against the company when they've been wronged. They hide this fact by using language to make it seem that the company is being fair by outsourcing issues in the company-consumer relationship to a "fair" and "nonjudgmental" third party who may act as a mediator during disputes. While this sounds neutral, objective, and even fair on the surface, it neglects the ways in which the company uses arbiters in their favor. Additionally, it completely removes the consumer's right to a class-action lawsuit in cases where the company's bad practice affects dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of other consumers.
-#Pointing to the End User License Agreement as a justification for unpopular practices.
 ==Notable Examples==
@@ Line 30: / Line 32: @@
 Placing disclaimers such as "We may take away and remove television and movies you bought & paid for at any time, because purchase doesn't mean purchase anymore" next to the "Add to cart" button would understandably negatively affect sales. Therefore, Sony buries this information on page 21 of their Terms of Service.
 ===Smart Appliance Data Collection & Third-Party Data Sharing===
-[[File:LG ThinQ app terms of service part 1.webp|alt=LG ThinQ app terms of service from July 2024, for use of an LG smart washing machine|thumb|LG ThinQ app terms of service from July 2024, for use of an LG smart washing machine]]
-[[File:LG ThinQ app TOS.webp|alt=LG ThinQ app terms of service from July 2024, for use of an LG smart washing machine: part 2 of 3.|thumb|LG ThinQ app terms of service from July 2024, for use of an LG smart washing machine: part 2 of 3.]]
-[[File:LG ThinQ app terms of service from July 2024, for use of an LG smart washing machine- part 3 of 3..webp|thumb]]
 LG Electronics (among others) require users to accept extensive terms of service and privacy policies to use the "smart" features on home appliances, such as washing machines.
@@ Line 39: / Line 38: @@
 A consumer has to read the complete Privacy Policy (see attached images below) to learn that LG collects their personal data and shares it with their advertising partners. Futhermore, this Privacy Policy is only shown to the customer once they have bought the LG product.
+===Disney's Wrongful Death Lawsuit===
+In a wrongful-death lawsuit, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on 5 October 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death<ref>{{Cite web |last=Piccolo |first=Jeffrey J. |date=02 Aug 2024 |title=AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE |url=https://consumerrights.wiki/images/9/9d/AUGUST_2ND_RESPONSE.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Treisman |first=Rachel |date=14 Aug 2024 |title=Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240821192924/https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney |archive-date=21 Aug 2024 |access-date=13 Jul 2025 |website=NPR}}</ref>.
+In May 2024, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed from court and sent to [[Forced Arbitration|arbitration]], citing two separate [[End-user license agreement|user agreements]]:
+#The [[Disney+]] user agreement Piccolo accepted in 2019 when signing up for a free trial to Disney's streaming service on his [[wikipedia:PlayStation|PlayStation]]
+#Terms accepted when purchasing (ultimately unused) Epcot tickets through the My Disney Experience app in September 2023
+This example shows how Disney attempted to use terms buried within a streaming-service agreement to deny a consumer's right to sue over an unrelated wrongful-death case at a restaurant. Disney argued that because Tangsuan had clicked "Agree & Continue" when signing up for the Disney+ streaming service, she was bound by an arbitration clause for any legal claims against the company or its affiliates. This, they argued, included the food served by a restaurant on their premises that killed her even though the issue was unrelated to the streaming service.
+Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was that the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Valinsky |first=Jordan |date=14 Aug 2024 |title=Disney wants wrongful death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+ |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240815002807/https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html |archive-date=15 Aug 2024 |access-date=13 Jul 2025 |website=CNN}}</ref>
 ==Consumer Impact==
@@ Line 65: / Line 76: @@
 ==Resources==
-*[https://tosdr.org/en/ TOSDR] &emdash; Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies
+*[https://tosdr.org/en/ TOSDR] &mdash; Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies
-*[https://tosback.org/ TOSBack] &emdash; Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies
+*[https://opentermsarchive.org/en/ Open Terms Archive] &mdash; Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies
 ==References==