Overreaching Contracts

Credit card companies, telecom operators, website publishers and software developers are all familiar with the need for standard, easily-applied agreements that customers sign up to by default when using the service.

While these agreements come in many names and forms ("shrink-wrap" for packaged software, "click-wrap" for downloaded software or software-as-a-service, "End User License Agreement," "Terms of Service," "Terms of Use" or "Customer Service Agreement" for websites or telecom providers) they all have one thing in common - they are contracts of adhesion, meaning the end user is stuck with them if they want to use the service.

There's nothing wrong with this per se - some form of agreement needs to surround these services, and such terms obviously can't be negotiated individually with every user. However, as today's kerfuffle over the terms of service for Google's new Chrome web browser shows, a company's lawyers need to pay attention to what these terms say and whether they are fair in the context of a contract of adhesion.

Why? For starters, while most anything goes in a fully-negotiated agreement, courts will quickly find a contract of adhesion unconscionable if the terms are overreaching. After all, the consumer has no other choice but to vote with their feet (and sometimes they don't even have that choice). The Washington Supreme Court recently decided a case (see Groklaw for a terrific discussion) that offers a classic look at the far reaches of unconscionability - an AT&T customer service agreement that, in addition to requiring arbitration of disputes (usually OK, even in adhesive contracts), also barred class actions, required all proceedings to stay secret, shortened the statute of limitations to bring actions, and limited consumer rights to sue for attorney's fees, while giving AT&T the right to do so (this last point wouldn't fly even in a fully negotiated contract in many states, including CA and WA).

While the Google lawyers apparently were just a little sloppy in applying terms from other services to Chrome, AT&T's lawyers must have just felt compelled to make their terms as one-sided as possible.

The problem is that this kind of overreaching has its costs. If you're AT&T, the only terms above that really make much difference are the arbitration clause and the class action waiver. The rest of the stuff is noise. However, it's so blatantly one-sided that a court couldn't help but trash all of these clauses; indeed, AT&T is lucky the entire agreement wasn't stuffed.

What would have happened if they had kept the agreement scrupulously fair on the procedural side but had retained the important limitations (arbitration and class action waiver)? I say there's a fair chance the court would have upheld their agreement. Instead, their eagerness to craft a lopsided agreement cost them what they really cared about. Nitwits.