We are updating the Google Terms of Service. The new Terms will go
live on November 11, 2013 and you can read them here.
Because many of you are allergic to legalese, here’s a plain English
summary for your convenience.
Why not just write your TOS in plain English, then? Also, if a company supplies both a "legalese" version and a "plain English" version that differ, which one takes precedent?
"Plain English" is the legal equivalent of pseudocode. (By similar reasoning, the courts are analogous to CPUs.)
The TOS isn't in plain English for the same reason that Android isn't written in pseudocode: the CPUs won't run it.
Also -- pseudocode ignores edge cases, boundary conditions, etc. to make it readable. Production code (and legal documents) can't escape these requirements.
Technically, the legalese version is written in plain English. ;)
But snark aside, I don't think this plain English version is all that enforceable since it doesn't mention at any point about being a contract that you're agreeing to. IANAL, but I think this is part of why the actual TOS isn't written in "normal English". All the stuff that makes it binding (or is supposed to, anyway) and prevents lawyers from twisting the words is what we call legalese.
I don't so much blame companies for this sorry state, but the legal system and the lawyers who inhabit it. Google and the like are just doing what they must to navigate in that environment.
It would certainly be open to the user to argue before a court that as the plain English version was more easily understood and avoided obscure legal terms, then that is the version that is enforceable against them.
This is particularly the case in the EU where legislation requires consumer-facing agreements to be in language that users are able to understand.
As far as I'm aware the issue has not been directly tested before a court. In part because the two-tiered approach is not adopted by many companies, and also because disputes over company's terms rarely reach court. It would definitely be interesting to see a court's take on the two-tiered approach though.
Speaking of plain English terms, at my workplace I recently re-drafted our main consumer-facing agreement to use exclusively plain English. This is likely to mean we would be more likely to enforce it, and also, I don't feel any certainty has been lost or if there has been any reduction this is outweighed by the benefit in making the terms more digestible by users.
"If you have a Google Account, we may display your Profile name, Profile photo, and actions you take on Google or on third-party applications connected to your Google Account (such as +1’s, reviews you write and comments you post) in our Services, including displaying in ads and other commercial contexts. We will respect the choices you make to limit sharing or visibility settings in your Google Account. For example, you can choose your settings so your name and photo do not appear in an ad."
Now the question is where are the settings? I assume it will be allowed by default. Will my choice be respected in the long run?
I wish other companies would borrow this "format" when they update their ToS. Even providing an easily accessible diff without me doing the work would be helpful. Too many times have I clicked on a ToS update to be directed to the new terms with a short note saying they're being updated on a certain date.
They provide handy diffs of hundreds of sites' ToS and privacy policies (and you can mail them to add others). You can also get Docracy to mail you when selected sites update their ToS.
[EDIT] - hmm, last updated in July, looks like they might have abandoned it :(
Where is the option for Google to pay me if they choose to use my image or likeness in "Shared Endorsements"? I can't see why anyone who is even a minor celebrity/blogger whose livelihood depends on being in the public consciousness would want to enable this option.
The other question is "what happens should Google fail to respect my choice not to enable shared endorsements?".
[+] [-] kylec|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] runako|12 years ago|reply
The TOS isn't in plain English for the same reason that Android isn't written in pseudocode: the CPUs won't run it.
Also -- pseudocode ignores edge cases, boundary conditions, etc. to make it readable. Production code (and legal documents) can't escape these requirements.
[+] [-] fooqux|12 years ago|reply
But snark aside, I don't think this plain English version is all that enforceable since it doesn't mention at any point about being a contract that you're agreeing to. IANAL, but I think this is part of why the actual TOS isn't written in "normal English". All the stuff that makes it binding (or is supposed to, anyway) and prevents lawyers from twisting the words is what we call legalese.
I don't so much blame companies for this sorry state, but the legal system and the lawyers who inhabit it. Google and the like are just doing what they must to navigate in that environment.
[+] [-] grabeh|12 years ago|reply
This is particularly the case in the EU where legislation requires consumer-facing agreements to be in language that users are able to understand.
As far as I'm aware the issue has not been directly tested before a court. In part because the two-tiered approach is not adopted by many companies, and also because disputes over company's terms rarely reach court. It would definitely be interesting to see a court's take on the two-tiered approach though.
Speaking of plain English terms, at my workplace I recently re-drafted our main consumer-facing agreement to use exclusively plain English. This is likely to mean we would be more likely to enforce it, and also, I don't feel any certainty has been lost or if there has been any reduction this is outweighed by the benefit in making the terms more digestible by users.
[+] [-] pmelendez|12 years ago|reply
As for the plain English, I think is because in law you have to be very explicit in order to do not leave any holes.
[+] [-] humbledrone|12 years ago|reply
http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/
[+] [-] eCa|12 years ago|reply
(And I agree.)
[+] [-] aviraldg|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crb|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lawn|12 years ago|reply
"If you have a Google Account, we may display your Profile name, Profile photo, and actions you take on Google or on third-party applications connected to your Google Account (such as +1’s, reviews you write and comments you post) in our Services, including displaying in ads and other commercial contexts. We will respect the choices you make to limit sharing or visibility settings in your Google Account. For example, you can choose your settings so your name and photo do not appear in an ad."
Now the question is where are the settings? I assume it will be allowed by default. Will my choice be respected in the long run?
[+] [-] fooqux|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bry|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erenemre|12 years ago|reply
I'm unsure if they still can use my info on shared endorsements...
[+] [-] mcescalante|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joosters|12 years ago|reply
https://www.docracy.com/tos/changes
They provide handy diffs of hundreds of sites' ToS and privacy policies (and you can mail them to add others). You can also get Docracy to mail you when selected sites update their ToS.
[EDIT] - hmm, last updated in July, looks like they might have abandoned it :(
[+] [-] reustle|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dingaling|12 years ago|reply
Interesting, given the recent hullabaloo around people submitting their Gmail credentials to Linked In for contact-scraping.
From some of the technical measures Google outlines as 'unusual activity' it sounds like they might be closing that hole...
[+] [-] brisance|12 years ago|reply
The other question is "what happens should Google fail to respect my choice not to enable shared endorsements?".