Hidden EULA language - Revision history

Bananabot: Added archive URLs for 1 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

2026-02-23T05:25:07Z

Added archive URLs for 1 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:25, 23 February 2026
Line 42:		Line 42:

	===Disney's wrongful death lawsuit===		===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=2 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 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=2 Aug 2024 \|title=AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE \|url=https://consumerrights.wiki/images/9/9d/AUGUST_2ND_RESPONSE.pdf \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250820191622/https://consumerrights.wiki/images/9/9d/AUGUST_2ND_RESPONSE.pdf \|archive-date=20 Aug 2025}}</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]]:		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]]:

Sojourna at 03:32, 13 November 2025

2025-11-13T03:32:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:32, 13 November 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Main\|End user license agreement}}		{{Main\|End user license agreement}}

	'''[[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.		'''[[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, {{Wplink\|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.

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

	#~~the consumer~~'s lack of proficiency in understanding legal documents~~, and~~		#Consumers' lack of proficiency in understanding legal documents.
	#~~the~~ impracticality of reading long documents in order to meet one's needs.		#The impracticality of reading long documents in order to meet one's needs.

	==Core ~~Concept~~==		==Core concept==
	Unfavorable language hidden within an end-user license agreement may be understood by three key deceptive practices:		Unfavorable language hidden within an end-user license agreement may be understood by three key deceptive practices:

Line 26:		Line 26:

	===Sony PlayStation Store===		===Sony PlayStation Store===
	Sony prominently displays ''"PURCHASE"'' buttons for digital content but buries a ~~redefinition~~ of the word "purchase" in Section 10.1 of their Terms of Service:<ref>PLAYSTATION<sup>TM</sup> NETWORK TERMS OF SERVICE AND USER AGREEMENT, December 30th, 2023: https://web.archive.org/web/20231230163548/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psn-terms-of-service/</ref>		Sony prominently displays ''"PURCHASE"'' buttons for digital content but buries a re-definition of the word "purchase" in Section 10.1 of their Terms of Service:<ref>PLAYSTATION<sup>TM</sup> NETWORK TERMS OF SERVICE AND USER AGREEMENT, December 30th, 2023: https://web.archive.org/web/20231230163548/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psn-terms-of-service/</ref>

	<blockquote>"Use of the terms 'own,' 'ownership', 'purchase,' 'sale,' 'sold,' 'sell,' 'rent' or 'buy'… does not mean or imply any transfer of ownership…"</blockquote>		<blockquote>"Use of the terms 'own,' 'ownership', 'purchase,' 'sale,' 'sold,' 'sell,' 'rent' or 'buy'… does not mean or imply any transfer of ownership…"</blockquote>
Line 33:		Line 33:

	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.		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===~~

			===Smart appliance data collection and third-party data sharing===
	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.		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.

	While the "smart" features may have time-saving benefits, the time required to actually read and decipher these documents (often 3+ hours, especially for non-tech-savvy users) negates any time-saving benefits of the smart features themselves. This makes meaningful informed consent impractical.		While the "smart" features may have time-saving benefits, the time required to actually read and decipher these documents (often 3+ hours, especially for non-tech-savvy users) negates any time-saving benefits of the smart features themselves. This makes meaningful informed consent impractical.

	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.		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. Furthermore, this privacy policy is only shown to the customer once they have bought the LG product.

	===Disney's ~~Wrongful Death Lawsuit~~===		===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=2024~~-08-02~~ \|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 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=2 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]]:		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]]		#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]]
Line 53:		Line 53:
	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>		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~~==		==Consumer impact==
	The practice undermines informed consent in digital transactions by:		The practice undermines informed consent in digital transactions by:

Line 61:		Line 61:
	*Presenting one meaning of terms (like "purchase") in the user interface while legally defining them differently in hidden terms.		*Presenting one meaning of terms (like "purchase") in the user interface while legally defining them differently in hidden terms.

	==Legal ~~Context~~==		==Legal context==
	While EULAs and [[Terms of service\|Terms of Service]] are legally binding documents, the "EULA roofie" concept challenges their legitimacy by highlighting how they may violate principles of contract law such as:		While EULAs and [[Terms of service\|Terms of Service]] are legally binding documents, the "EULA roofie" concept challenges their legitimacy by highlighting how they may violate principles of contract law such as:

Line 67:		Line 67:
	*Good-faith dealing.		*Good-faith dealing.
	*Reasonable notice of terms.		*Reasonable notice of terms.
	*~~Unconscionability~~ (terms so unfair they shock the conscience).		*Unconscionable (terms so unfair they shock the conscience).

	==Consumer ~~Protection Response~~==		==Consumer protection response==
	The concept has been used in advocacy for:		The concept has been used in advocacy for:

Line 81:		Line 81:

	==Resources==		==Resources==
			*[https://tosdr.org/en/ TOSDR] — Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies
			*[https://opentermsarchive.org/en/ Open Terms Archive] — Records changes to terms of service. Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies.
			*[https://www.pilotlab.org/eulas-of-despair EULA of Despair] — Illustrates the size and complexity of license agreements, with the subsidiary documents they include, for some common services.

	*[https://tosdr.org/en/ TOSDR] — Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies		==Further reading==
	*[https://opentermsarchive.org/en/ Open Terms Archive] — Records changes to terms of service. Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies.
	*[https://www.pilotlab.org/eulas-of-despair EULA of Despair] — Illustrates the size and complexity of license agreements, with the subsidiary documents they include, for some common services.

	==Further ~~Reading~~==

	*[[Game-of-telephone privacy policy]]		*[[Game-of-telephone privacy policy]]

	==References==		==References==
			{{Reflist}}
	~~<references />~~

	[[Category:Anti-consumer practices]]		[[Category:Anti-consumer practices]]
	[[Category:Common license terms]]		[[Category:Common license terms]]

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: fixed cite error

2025-11-06T10:26:40Z

fixed cite error

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:26, 6 November 2025
Line 42:		Line 42:

	===Disney's Wrongful Death Lawsuit===		===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 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=2024-08-02 \|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]]:		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]]:
Line 86:		Line 86:
	*[https://www.pilotlab.org/eulas-of-despair EULA of Despair] — Illustrates the size and complexity of license agreements, with the subsidiary documents they include, for some common services.		*[https://www.pilotlab.org/eulas-of-despair EULA of Despair] — Illustrates the size and complexity of license agreements, with the subsidiary documents they include, for some common services.

	== Further Reading ==		==Further Reading==

	* [[Game-of-telephone privacy policy]]		*[[Game-of-telephone privacy policy]]

	==References==		==References==

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson: /* References */ changing cats with AWB

2025-10-26T18:46:58Z

References: changing cats with AWB

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, 26 October 2025
Line 94:		Line 94:
	<references />		<references />

	[[Category:Anti-~~Consumer_Practices~~]]		[[Category:Anti-consumer practices]]
	[[Category:Common license terms]]		[[Category:Common license terms]]

Drakeula: /* References */ license subcat

2025-10-19T06:25:18Z

References: license subcat

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:25, 19 October 2025
Line 95:		Line 95:

	[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]		[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
	[[Category:Common terms]]		[[Category:Common license terms]]

Drakeula: Further reading - game of telephone privacy policies

2025-10-19T04:58:11Z

Further reading - game of telephone privacy policies

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:58, 19 October 2025
Line 83:		Line 83:

	*[https://tosdr.org/en/ TOSDR] — 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://opentermsarchive.org/en/ Open Terms Archive] — Records changes to terms of service. Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies.		*[https://opentermsarchive.org/en/ Open Terms Archive] — Records changes to terms of service. Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies.
	*[https://www.pilotlab.org/eulas-of-despair EULA of Despair] — Illustrates the size and complexity of license agreements, with the subsidiary documents they include, for some common services.		*[https://www.pilotlab.org/eulas-of-despair EULA of Despair] — Illustrates the size and complexity of license agreements, with the subsidiary documents they include, for some common services.

			== Further Reading ==

			* [[Game-of-telephone privacy policy]]

	==References==		==References==

Drakeula: /* Legal Context */ wikilink TOS, describe TOS archive

2025-10-19T04:54:15Z

Legal Context: wikilink TOS, describe TOS archive

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:54, 19 October 2025
Line 62:		Line 62:

	==Legal Context==		==Legal Context==
	While EULAs and Terms of Service are legally binding documents, the "EULA roofie" concept challenges their legitimacy by highlighting how they may violate principles of contract law such as:		While EULAs and [[Terms of service\|Terms of Service]] are legally binding documents, the "EULA roofie" concept challenges their legitimacy by highlighting how they may violate principles of contract law such as:

	*Meeting of the minds (mutual understanding between parties).		*Meeting of the minds (mutual understanding between parties).
Line 77:		Line 77:
	Use of standard license agreements.		Use of standard license agreements.

	* More people review each license		*More people review each license
	* Encourages reviewers to post comparative license information		*Encourages reviewers to post comparative license information

	==Resources==		==Resources==

	*[https://tosdr.org/en/ TOSDR] — 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://opentermsarchive.org/en/ Open Terms Archive] — Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies		*[https://opentermsarchive.org/en/ Open Terms Archive] — Records changes to terms of service. Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies.
	*[https://www.pilotlab.org/eulas-of-despair EULA of Despair] — Illustrates the size and complexity of license agreements, with the subsidiary documents they include, for some common services.		*[https://www.pilotlab.org/eulas-of-despair EULA of Despair] — Illustrates the size and complexity of license agreements, with the subsidiary documents they include, for some common services.

Drakeula: Main: eula. mention standard licenses. resource: eula of despair

2025-10-11T07:55:42Z

Main: eula. mention standard licenses. resource: eula of despair

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:55, 11 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Main\|End user license agreement}}

	'''[[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.		'''[[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.

Line 13:		Line 15:
	#Pointing to the End User License Agreement as a justification for unpopular and unfair practices.		#Pointing to the End User License Agreement as a justification for unpopular and unfair practices.

	== Types of hidden EULA language ==		==Types of hidden EULA language==

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

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

Line 73:		Line 75:
	*Prominent disclosure of significant terms.		*Prominent disclosure of significant terms.
	*Reform of digital ownership rights.		*Reform of digital ownership rights.
			Use of standard license agreements.

			* More people review each license
			* Encourages reviewers to post comparative license information

	==Resources==		==Resources==
Line 78:		Line 84:
	*[https://tosdr.org/en/ TOSDR] — 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://opentermsarchive.org/en/ Open Terms Archive] — 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
			*[https://www.pilotlab.org/eulas-of-despair EULA of Despair] — Illustrates the size and complexity of license agreements, with the subsidiary documents they include, for some common services.

	==References==		==References==

Beanie Bo: Rough draft of types of hidden EULA language

2025-10-02T15:24:14Z

Rough draft of types of hidden EULA language

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, 2 October 2025
Line 12:		Line 12:
	#Making the full terms impractical or impossible for the customer to meaningfully review.		#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.		#Pointing to the End User License Agreement as a justification for unpopular and unfair practices.

			== Types of hidden EULA language ==

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

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

	==Notable Examples==		==Notable Examples==

Beanie Bo: Re-wrote opening to fit the new language

2025-10-02T15:14:48Z

Re-wrote opening to fit the new language

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:14, 2 October 2025
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:		By hiding contentious or unconscionable terms in dense legal documents, manufacturers exploit:

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

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

	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.

	==Core Concept==		==Core Concept==
	~~The term "EULA roofie" describes~~ three key deceptive practices:		Unfavorable language hidden within an end-user license agreement may be understood by three key deceptive practices:

	#Burying unattractive terms deep within an ~~End User License Agreement (~~while avoiding mention ~~of them~~ in marketing ~~materials~~ and customer-facing interfaces).		#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.		#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 practices.		#Pointing to the End User License Agreement as a justification for unpopular and unfair practices.

	==Notable Examples==		==Notable Examples==
Line 45:		Line 39:
	#Terms accepted when purchasing (ultimately unused) Epcot tickets through the My Disney Experience app in September 2023		#Terms accepted when purchasing (ultimately unused) Epcot tickets through the My Disney Experience app in September 2023

	This ~~is an~~ example ~~of a EULA roofie, where~~ 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.		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>		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>