Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@innerop

innerop/final-linkedin.json

Last active June 28, 2024 00:51
Show Gist options
  • Save innerop/683089a42f0d7792093afe7ce4aa5ad7 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save innerop/683089a42f0d7792093afe7ce4aa5ad7 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Download ZIP
final-linkedin.json
Raw
final-linkedin.json
{
"title_of_the_document": "End User License Agreement",
"section_header": "2. License",
"section_body": "LinkedIn hereby grants you, subject to the terms and conditions of this EULA, a non-exclusive,
non-transferable personal license to:
Use the Software for your own personal use;
Install the Software on only one Device; and
Make one copy of the Software in any machine readable form solely for back-up purposes,
provided you reproduce the Software in its original form and with all proprietary notices on the
back-up copy.
For clarity, the foregoing is not intended to prohibit you from installing and backing-up the
Software for another Device on which you also agreed to the EULA. Each instance of this EULA
that you agree to grants you the aforementioned rights in connection with the installation, use
and back-up of one copy of the Software on one Device.",
"legal_review": {
"offering_party": "LinkedIn",
"accepting_party": "The individual or entity downloading, installing, or using the application",
"accepting_party_state": "Washington",
"key_issues": [
"Ambiguity in the terms regarding the number of devices on which the software can be installed and backed up.",
"Potential perception of the terms being overly restrictive or unfair."
],
"federal_and_state_laws_supporting_accepting_party_rights": [
{
"law": "17 U.S.C. § 117(a)(2)",
"why_this_law": "This law allows the owner of a copy of a computer program to make another copy or adaptation of that program for archival purposes, provided that all copies are destroyed if the original copy is no longer in possession. This supports the user's right to make back-up copies, which could be seen as contrary to the restrictive nature of the EULA's back-up provisions.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title17-section117&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "RCW 19.86.020",
"state": "Washington",
"why_this_law": "This law addresses the potential for the EULA terms to be considered unfair or deceptive if they are overly restrictive or not clearly communicated. If the terms are found to be unfair, they could be challenged under this law, protecting the rights of the accepting party.",
"url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020"
}
],
"accepting_party_rights_being_potentially_violated": [
"The right to install the software on multiple devices for personal use.",
"The right to make multiple back-up copies for security purposes.",
"The right to not be burdened by agreeing to the EULA for each device."
],
"distribution_of_risks_factors_for_offering_party": [
"Ambiguity in the terms could lead to disputes and potential lawsuits.",
"Overly restrictive terms could be challenged as unfair or deceptive.",
"The burden on users to agree to the EULA for each device could lead to user dissatisfaction and potential legal challenges."
],
"risk_score": "medium",
"why_so": "In the case of Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010), the court ruled in favor of the software company, emphasizing the importance of clear and enforceable EULA terms. However, in cases where EULA terms are found to be overly restrictive or not clearly communicated, such as in the case of ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), courts have ruled in favor of the user. The mixed outcomes in these cases suggest a medium probability of LinkedIn facing legal challenges if the terms are not clear and reasonable.",
"recommendations": {
"for_accepting_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Challenge the EULA terms regarding device installation and back-up copies.",
"legal_basis": "17 U.S.C. § 117(a)(2) and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Review the EULA for specific language on device installation and back-up copies.",
"Gather evidence of the accepting party's need for multiple installations and back-up copies.",
"File a complaint citing 17 U.S.C. § 117(a)(2) for the right to make back-up copies and RCW 19.86.020 for unfair or deceptive terms.",
"Seek a declaratory judgment to clarify the rights of the accepting party under the EULA."
]
}
],
"for_offering_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Clarify and potentially revise the EULA terms to avoid ambiguity and overly restrictive provisions.",
"legal_basis": "Case precedents such as Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. and ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg",
"steps": [
"Conduct a thorough review of the current EULA terms.",
"Identify and address any ambiguous or overly restrictive clauses.",
"Revise the EULA to clearly state the number of devices allowed for installation and the conditions for making back-up copies.",
"Implement a user-friendly process for EULA acceptance to reduce the burden on users."
]
}
],
"for_judges": [
{
"action": "Evaluate the fairness and clarity of the EULA terms in light of federal and state laws.",
"legal_basis": "17 U.S.C. § 117(a)(2), RCW 19.86.020, and relevant case law",
"steps": [
"Examine the specific language of the EULA regarding device installation and back-up copies.",
"Consider the arguments and evidence presented by both parties.",
"Assess whether the EULA terms are overly restrictive or ambiguous.",
"Issue a ruling that balances the rights of the accepting party with the legitimate interests of the offering party, ensuring compliance with applicable laws."
]
}
]
}
}
}
{
"title_of_the_document": "End User License Agreement",
"section_header": "12. Export Restrictions",
"section_body": "This EULA is expressly made subject to any laws, regulations, orders or other restrictions on the
export of software from the United States of America, and may be subject to export and import
regulations of other countries. You acknowledge and agree not to import, export, re-export,
transfer or use, directly or indirectly, the Software without compliance with such laws,
regulations, orders or other restrictions.",
"legal_review": {
"offering_party": "LinkedIn",
"accepting_party": "The individual or entity downloading, installing, or using the application",
"accepting_party_state": "Washington",
"key_issues": [
"The section's broad and vague language regarding compliance with various laws, regulations, orders, or other restrictions.",
"The burden of compliance is placed on the accepting party without clear guidelines or support from LinkedIn.",
"Potential legal disputes if the accepting party fails to comply due to a lack of understanding or resources."
],
"federal_and_state_laws_supporting_accepting_party_rights": [
{
"law": "15 U.S.C. § 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission",
"why_this_law": "This law addresses unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. If LinkedIn's export restrictions are deemed overly burdensome or unclear, they could be considered unfair practices, potentially violating the accepting party's rights.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section45&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "RCW 19.86.020: Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.",
"state": "Washington",
"why_this_law": "This law protects consumers and businesses in Washington state from unfair or deceptive practices. If LinkedIn's EULA is found to be overly burdensome or unclear, it could be considered an unfair practice under this statute.",
"url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020"
}
],
"accepting_party_rights_being_potentially_violated": [
"The right to clear and understandable terms in a contract.",
"The right to not be subjected to unfair or deceptive practices.",
"The right to use the software without undue burden or risk of legal consequences due to unclear compliance requirements."
],
"distribution_of_risks_factors_for_offering_party": [
"LinkedIn may face legal disputes if the accepting party argues that the compliance requirements are unclear or overly burdensome.",
"The potential for regulatory scrutiny if the EULA is found to be unfair or deceptive.",
"The risk of reputational damage if users perceive the terms as unfair or overly restrictive."
],
"risk_score": "low",
"why_so": "Historically, cases involving EULAs and compliance with export regulations are relatively rare. Most disputes are resolved through negotiation or arbitration rather than litigation. Additionally, courts often uphold the terms of EULAs if they are deemed reasonable and necessary for compliance with international trade laws.",
"recommendations": {
"for_accepting_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Challenge the EULA's compliance requirements",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 45 and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Review the EULA for vague or overly broad language.",
"Gather evidence of how the terms are burdensome or unclear.",
"File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) citing 15 U.S.C. § 45.",
"Consider a state-level complaint under RCW 19.86.020 for unfair practices."
]
},
{
"action": "Negotiate clearer terms",
"legal_basis": "Contract law principles",
"steps": [
"Request a meeting with LinkedIn's legal team.",
"Propose specific language changes to clarify compliance requirements.",
"Document all communications and agreements."
]
}
],
"for_offering_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Clarify compliance requirements in the EULA",
"legal_basis": "Contract law and consumer protection laws",
"steps": [
"Review the current EULA for ambiguous terms.",
"Consult with compliance experts to draft clearer guidelines.",
"Update the EULA and notify users of the changes."
]
},
{
"action": "Implement a support system for compliance",
"legal_basis": "Best practices in customer service and legal compliance",
"steps": [
"Create a dedicated support team to assist users with compliance questions.",
"Develop comprehensive FAQs and resources.",
"Monitor and address common compliance issues reported by users."
]
}
],
"for_judges": [
{
"action": "Evaluate the fairness of the EULA",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 45 and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Review the specific terms of the EULA in question.",
"Consider the burden placed on the accepting party.",
"Assess whether the terms are clear and reasonable."
]
},
{
"action": "Ensure compliance with consumer protection laws",
"legal_basis": "Federal and state consumer protection statutes",
"steps": [
"Examine the evidence presented by both parties.",
"Determine if LinkedIn's practices are unfair or deceptive.",
"Issue a ruling that upholds the rights of the accepting party if necessary."
]
}
]
}
}
}
{
"title_of_the_document": "End User License Agreement",
"section_header": "5. Personal Information and Privacy",
"section_body": "Our handling of personal information we collect through the LinkedIn Services or the Software is
governed by the LinkedIn Privacy Policy.",
"legal_review": {
"offering_party": "LinkedIn",
"accepting_party": "The individual or entity downloading, installing, or using the application",
"accepting_party_state": "Washington",
"key_issues": [
"Lack of specific details in the EULA about how personal information is handled.",
"Potential changes to the LinkedIn Privacy Policy without adequate user notification.",
"Possible collection and use of personal information beyond what is necessary or disclosed."
],
"federal_and_state_laws_supporting_accepting_party_rights": [
{
"law": "15 U.S.C. § 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission",
"why_this_law": "This law addresses unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. If LinkedIn's Privacy Policy is misleading or if the company fails to protect user data adequately, it could be considered an unfair practice under this statute.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section45&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "18 U.S.C. § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers",
"why_this_law": "This law addresses unauthorized access to computers and the misuse of data. If LinkedIn's handling of personal information involves unauthorized access or misuse, it could be in violation of this statute, thereby protecting the user's rights.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1030&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "RCW 19.86.020 - Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful.",
"state": "Washington",
"why_this_law": "This law supports the accepting party's rights by prohibiting unfair or deceptive practices. If LinkedIn's Privacy Policy changes without proper notification or if the policy is not transparent, it could be considered deceptive, thus violating this law.",
"url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020"
}
],
"accepting_party_rights_being_potentially_violated": [
"Right to be informed about how personal information is used.",
"Right to privacy and protection of personal data.",
"Right to be notified of changes to data handling practices."
],
"distribution_of_risks_factors_for_offering_party": [
"If the Privacy Policy is not clear or comprehensive, users may not fully understand how their personal information is being used, leading to potential legal challenges.",
"Changes to the Privacy Policy without adequate notification could result in users' data being handled in ways they did not originally consent to, increasing the risk of lawsuits.",
"Lack of specific details in the EULA about data handling practices could lead to a lack of informed consent, which could be legally risky for LinkedIn."
],
"risk_score": "medium",
"why_so": "There have been several high-profile cases where companies faced legal challenges due to unclear or misleading privacy policies. For example, Facebook settled with the FTC for $5 billion in 2019 over privacy violations. Similarly, Google was fined $57 million by French regulators in 2019 for lack of transparency in its data handling practices. These cases highlight the importance of clear and comprehensive privacy policies and the potential legal risks of failing to provide them.",
"recommendations": {
"for_accepting_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "File a complaint with the FTC",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission",
"steps": [
"Gather evidence of misleading or inadequate privacy policy details.",
"Document instances where LinkedIn's data handling practices may be unfair or deceptive.",
"Submit a formal complaint to the FTC with supporting documentation."
]
},
{
"action": "Seek injunctive relief in state court",
"legal_basis": "RCW 19.86.020 - Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful.",
"steps": [
"Collect evidence of changes to LinkedIn's Privacy Policy without proper notification.",
"File a lawsuit in Washington state court seeking injunctive relief to prevent further deceptive practices.",
"Request the court to mandate clear and transparent privacy policy disclosures."
]
}
],
"for_offering_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Revise and clarify the Privacy Policy",
"legal_basis": "Compliance with 15 U.S.C. § 45 and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Conduct a thorough review of the current Privacy Policy.",
"Ensure all data handling practices are clearly and comprehensively disclosed.",
"Implement a process for notifying users of any changes to the Privacy Policy in a timely manner."
]
},
{
"action": "Implement robust data protection measures",
"legal_basis": "Compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers",
"steps": [
"Audit current data protection and access control measures.",
"Enhance security protocols to prevent unauthorized access to user data.",
"Regularly review and update security measures to comply with legal standards."
]
}
],
"for_judges": [
{
"action": "Evaluate the transparency and fairness of LinkedIn's Privacy Policy",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 45 and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Review the evidence presented regarding the clarity and comprehensiveness of LinkedIn's Privacy Policy.",
"Assess whether LinkedIn's practices align with legal requirements for transparency and fairness.",
"Issue rulings that ensure user rights to be informed and protected are upheld."
]
},
{
"action": "Ensure compliance with data protection laws",
"legal_basis": "18 U.S.C. § 1030",
"steps": [
"Examine the measures LinkedIn has in place to protect user data from unauthorized access.",
"Determine if LinkedIn's data handling practices comply with federal and state data protection laws.",
"Mandate corrective actions if LinkedIn is found to be in violation of these laws."
]
}
]
}
}
}
{
"title_of_the_document": "End User License Agreement",
"section_header": "7. Right to Terminate or Modify Software",
"section_body": "LinkedIn may modify the Software and this EULA without notice. You may cease use of the
Software at any time. Either party may terminate this EULA at any time, with or without notice.",
"legal_review": {
"offering_party": "LinkedIn",
"accepting_party": "The individual or entity downloading, installing, or using the application",
"accepting_party_state": "Washington",
"key_issues": [
"Lack of prior notice for modifications to the software or EULA",
"Potential unfair or deceptive practices",
"Termination of EULA without notice"
],
"federal_and_state_laws_supporting_accepting_party_rights": [
{
"law": "15 U.S.C. § 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission",
"why_this_law": "This law addresses unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. The ability of LinkedIn to modify the EULA or software without prior notice could be seen as an unfair practice, as it does not provide users with adequate information to make informed decisions.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section45&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "15 U.S.C. § 2301 - Definitions (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act)",
"why_this_law": "This law provides protections for consumers regarding warranties and service contracts. The ability to modify the EULA without notice could be seen as a violation of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section2301&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "RCW 19.86.020: Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.",
"state": "Washington",
"why_this_law": "This law supports the accepting party's rights by prohibiting unfair or deceptive practices, which could include making significant changes to the EULA or software without prior notice. It addresses the issue of transparency and consent, ensuring that users are not misled or unfairly treated.",
"url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020"
}
],
"accepting_party_rights_being_potentially_violated": [
"Right to be informed of changes to the software or EULA",
"Right to consent to changes",
"Right to have adequate time to transition to alternative solutions if the EULA is terminated"
],
"distribution_of_risks_factors_for_offering_party": [
"Potential legal challenges under consumer protection laws",
"Risk of being seen as engaging in unfair or deceptive practices",
"Possibility of breach of contract claims"
],
"risk_score": "medium",
"why_so": "There have been several cases where companies faced legal challenges for making unilateral changes to terms of service or software without adequate notice. For example, in the case of Douglas v. Talk America Inc., the court held that a company could not unilaterally change the terms of a contract without providing notice to the other party. This precedent suggests that LinkedIn could face similar legal challenges if users feel that changes to the EULA or software were made without proper notice.",
"recommendations": {
"for_accepting_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Challenge unilateral modifications to the EULA",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 45 and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) citing unfair or deceptive practices.",
"Initiate a lawsuit in Washington state court under RCW 19.86.020 for unfair or deceptive acts.",
"Gather evidence of lack of notice and any resulting harm to users."
]
},
{
"action": "Seek injunctive relief to prevent termination without notice",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 2301 (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act)",
"steps": [
"File a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent LinkedIn from terminating the EULA without notice.",
"Argue that such termination violates the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing.",
"Present evidence of the potential harm to users if the EULA is terminated without notice."
]
}
],
"for_offering_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Implement a clear notice policy for EULA changes",
"legal_basis": "Compliance with 15 U.S.C. § 45 and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Draft a policy that requires at least 30 days' notice before any changes to the EULA.",
"Ensure that users must actively consent to the new terms before they take effect.",
"Communicate the policy clearly to all users through multiple channels (email, in-app notifications, etc.)."
]
},
{
"action": "Develop a fair termination policy",
"legal_basis": "Compliance with 15 U.S.C. § 2301 (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act)",
"steps": [
"Create a termination policy that includes a minimum notice period (e.g., 60 days).",
"Provide users with reasons for termination and steps they can take to avoid it.",
"Offer support to help users transition to alternative solutions if termination is unavoidable."
]
}
],
"for_judges": [
{
"action": "Ensure fair notice and consent practices",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 45 and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Review the evidence to determine if LinkedIn provided adequate notice of EULA changes.",
"Assess whether the lack of notice constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice.",
"Issue rulings that require companies to provide clear and timely notice of any changes to terms of service."
]
},
{
"action": "Protect consumer rights under warranty laws",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 2301 (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act)",
"steps": [
"Evaluate whether the termination of the EULA without notice violates the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing.",
"Consider issuing injunctions to prevent companies from terminating agreements without adequate notice.",
"Ensure that any termination policies are fair and provide users with sufficient time to transition."
]
}
]
}
}
}
{
"title_of_the_document": "End User License Agreement",
"section_header": "9. Open Source",
"section_body": "The Software may contain or be provided together with open source software. Each item of
open source software is subject to its own applicable license terms, which can be found at
https://www.linkedin.com/legal/l/open-source-mobile-apps and/or in the Software documentation
or the applicable help, notices, about or source files. Copyrights to the open source software are
held by the respective copyright holders indicated therein.",
"legal_review": {
"offering_party": "LinkedIn",
"accepting_party": "The individual or entity downloading, installing, or using the application",
"accepting_party_state": "Washington",
"key_issues": [
"Confusion due to multiple sources for open source license terms.",
"Potential non-compliance with various open source licenses.",
"Lack of understanding of the implications of different open source licenses by users."
],
"federal_and_state_laws_supporting_accepting_party_rights": [
{
"law": "17 U.S.C. § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works",
"why_this_law": "This law ensures that users are informed about the terms under which they can use the open source software. If LinkedIn fails to provide clear and accessible information about these terms, it could infringe on the users' rights to understand and comply with the licenses.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title17-section106&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "RCW 19.86.020: Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.",
"state": "Washington",
"why_this_law": "This law protects consumers from unfair or deceptive practices. If LinkedIn's disclosure of open source licenses is deemed insufficient or misleading, it could be considered a deceptive practice under this law, thereby supporting the accepting party's rights.",
"url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020"
}
],
"accepting_party_rights_being_potentially_violated": [
"Right to clear and accessible information about open source license terms.",
"Right to understand and comply with the open source licenses to avoid legal consequences."
],
"distribution_of_risks_factors_for_offering_party": [
"Potential legal action from open source software's copyright holders if LinkedIn fails to comply with the licenses.",
"Users might inadvertently violate open source licenses due to unclear communication, leading to legal issues for LinkedIn."
],
"risk_score": "low",
"why_so": "Historically, cases involving non-compliance with open source licenses are relatively rare and often resolved through settlements or compliance adjustments rather than litigation. For example, in the case of Jacobsen v. Katzer, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to open source licenses but did not result in significant penalties for the defendant. Additionally, companies like LinkedIn typically have legal teams to ensure compliance with open source licenses, further reducing the risk of successful lawsuits.",
"recommendations": {
"for_accepting_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Ensure clear communication of open source license terms to users.",
"legal_basis": "17 U.S.C. § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works",
"steps": [
"Review LinkedIn's current disclosure practices for open source licenses.",
"Identify any gaps or ambiguities in the information provided.",
"Request LinkedIn to provide clearer, more accessible information about open source license terms."
]
},
{
"action": "File a complaint if LinkedIn's practices are found to be deceptive.",
"legal_basis": "RCW 19.86.020 - Unfair or deceptive acts or practices",
"steps": [
"Gather evidence of insufficient or misleading disclosures by LinkedIn.",
"File a complaint with the Washington State Attorney General's Office.",
"Seek remedies such as clearer disclosures or compensation for affected users."
]
}
],
"for_offering_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Review and enhance open source license compliance.",
"legal_basis": "17 U.S.C. § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works",
"steps": [
"Conduct a comprehensive audit of all open source software used by LinkedIn.",
"Ensure all open source licenses are clearly communicated to users.",
"Implement a regular review process to maintain compliance with open source licenses."
]
},
{
"action": "Mitigate potential legal risks from non-compliance.",
"legal_basis": "RCW 19.86.020 - Unfair or deceptive acts or practices",
"steps": [
"Develop a risk management strategy to address potential non-compliance issues.",
"Train relevant staff on the importance of adhering to open source licenses.",
"Establish a clear protocol for addressing any identified non-compliance promptly."
]
}
],
"for_judges": [
{
"action": "Ensure fair and impartial adjudication of disputes.",
"legal_basis": "17 U.S.C. § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works",
"steps": [
"Review all evidence presented by both parties regarding compliance with open source licenses.",
"Consider the historical context and precedents in similar cases, such as Jacobsen v. Katzer.",
"Issue a ruling that ensures both parties understand their rights and obligations under the law."
]
},
{
"action": "Uphold consumer protection laws.",
"legal_basis": "RCW 19.86.020 - Unfair or deceptive acts or practices",
"steps": [
"Evaluate whether LinkedIn's disclosures meet the standards of fairness and transparency.",
"Determine if any deceptive practices have occurred and the appropriate remedies.",
"Ensure that the ruling protects consumers' rights to clear and accessible information."
]
}
]
}
}
}
{
"title_of_the_document": "End User License Agreement",
"section_header": "6. No Warranty",
"section_body": "LINKEDIN DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE SOFTWARE
WILL MEET ANY REQUIREMENTS OR NEEDS YOU MAY HAVE, OR THAT THE SOFTWARE
WILL OPERATE ERROR FREE, OR IN AN UNINTERRUPTED MANNER, OR THAT ANY
DEFECTS OR ERRORS WILL BE CORRECTED, OR THAT THE SOFTWARE IS FULLY
COMPATIBLE WITH ANY PARTICULAR PLATFORM. THE SOFTWARE IS OFFERED ON AN
AS-IS BASIS AND NO WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IS GIVEN. LINKEDIN
EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.
SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE WAIVER OR EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED
WARRANTIES SO THEY MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.",
"legal_review": {
"offering_party": "LinkedIn",
"accepting_party": "The individual or entity downloading, installing, or using the application",
"accepting_party_state": "Washington",
"key_issues": [
"The broad scope of the disclaimers may be confusing to non-legal individuals.",
"The section attempts to limit LinkedIn's liability in ways that may not be enforceable in all jurisdictions.",
"Potential infringement on the accepting party's rights if the disclaimers absolve LinkedIn of responsibility for providing a functional and safe product."
],
"federal_and_state_laws_supporting_accepting_party_rights": [
{
"law": "15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act)",
"why_this_law": "The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act governs warranties on consumer products and aims to protect consumers from deceptive warranty practices. It requires that warranties be clearly and conspicuously disclosed and prohibits disclaimers that are misleading or unfair.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title15/chapter50&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "RCW 19.86.020",
"state": "Washington",
"why_this_law": "This law prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce. The broad disclaimers in the EULA could be seen as unfair or deceptive if they mislead the accepting party about the software's reliability or LinkedIn's responsibilities.",
"url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020"
}
],
"accepting_party_rights_being_potentially_violated": [
"The right to seek recourse if the software is defective or causes harm.",
"The right to compensation for damages or losses incurred due to software defects or errors.",
"The right to be protected from unfair or deceptive practices in trade or commerce."
],
"distribution_of_risks_factors_for_offering_party": [
"Jurisdictions that do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties may still hold LinkedIn liable.",
"If the software fails to meet basic standards of quality or causes significant harm, LinkedIn could face legal challenges.",
"The broad disclaimers might be seen as an attempt to circumvent consumer protection laws, leading to potential legal scrutiny."
],
"risk_score": "medium",
"why_so": "There have been numerous cases where companies have faced legal challenges despite broad disclaimers in their EULAs. For example, in the case of 'Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.', the court held that users were not bound by the terms of the EULA because they were not adequately informed. Similarly, in 'ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg', the court ruled that the terms of the EULA were enforceable because they were clearly presented to the user. These cases highlight the importance of clear and conspicuous disclosure of terms and the potential for legal challenges if disclaimers are seen as unfair or deceptive.",
"recommendations": {
"for_accepting_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Challenge the enforceability of the disclaimers",
"legal_basis": "Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Review the EULA to identify any misleading or unfair disclaimers.",
"File a complaint citing violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and RCW 19.86.020.",
"Gather evidence of any harm or defects caused by the software to support the claim."
]
},
{
"action": "Seek compensation for damages",
"legal_basis": "Consumer protection laws and breach of warranty claims",
"steps": [
"Document all instances of software defects or errors and the resulting damages.",
"File a claim for compensation under applicable consumer protection laws.",
"Negotiate a settlement or pursue litigation if necessary."
]
}
],
"for_offering_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Review and revise disclaimers",
"legal_basis": "Compliance with consumer protection laws",
"steps": [
"Ensure disclaimers are clear, conspicuous, and not misleading.",
"Consult with legal experts to align disclaimers with jurisdictional requirements.",
"Update the EULA to reflect any necessary changes."
]
},
{
"action": "Implement a risk management strategy",
"legal_basis": "Minimize legal exposure",
"steps": [
"Conduct regular audits of the software to ensure it meets quality standards.",
"Establish a customer support system to address and resolve user complaints promptly.",
"Maintain comprehensive records of all software updates and user interactions."
]
}
],
"for_judges": [
{
"action": "Evaluate the fairness and clarity of the disclaimers",
"legal_basis": "Consumer protection laws and precedents",
"steps": [
"Examine the EULA to determine if the disclaimers are clear and conspicuous.",
"Consider the impact of the disclaimers on the accepting party's rights.",
"Reference relevant case law, such as 'Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.' and 'ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg', to guide the decision."
]
},
{
"action": "Ensure compliance with federal and state laws",
"legal_basis": "Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Verify that the EULA complies with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act's requirements for clear and fair warranties.",
"Assess whether the disclaimers violate RCW 19.86.020 by being unfair or deceptive.",
"Issue a ruling that upholds the accepting party's rights and enforces compliance with applicable laws."
]
}
]
}
}
}
{
"title_of_the_document": "End User License Agreement",
"section_header": "10. Indemnification",
"section_body": "To the fullest extent permitted by law, you agree to indemnify and otherwise hold harmless
LinkedIn Corporation, its officers, employees, agents, subsidiaries, affiliates and other partners
from any direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential or exemplary damages arising out of,
relating to, or resulting from your use of the Software or any other matter relating to the
Software.",
"legal_review": {
"offering_party": "LinkedIn",
"accepting_party": "The individual or entity downloading, installing, or using the application",
"accepting_party_state": "Washington",
"key_issues": [
"Broad scope of indemnification",
"Potential financial burden on the user",
"Lack of clarity and understanding for the user",
"Potential unenforceability if deemed unconscionable"
],
"federal_and_state_laws_supporting_accepting_party_rights": [
{
"law": "15 U.S.C. § 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission",
"why_this_law": "This law, enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. If the indemnification clause is found to be overly broad or misleading, it could be considered an unfair practice under this statute. This law supports the accepting party's rights by ensuring that contractual terms are fair and not deceptive.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section45&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "RCW 19.86.020",
"state": "Washington",
"why_this_law": "RCW 19.86.020, part of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce. This law supports the accepting party's rights by ensuring that contract terms are not unfairly one-sided or deceptive. Given the broad and potentially burdensome nature of the indemnification clause, this law could be used to argue that the terms are unfair and therefore unenforceable.",
"url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020"
}
],
"accepting_party_rights_being_potentially_violated": [
"Right to fair and clear contractual terms",
"Right to not be subjected to unreasonable financial burdens",
"Right to seek legal recourse against LinkedIn for issues arising from the use of the software"
],
"distribution_of_risks_factors_for_offering_party": [
"Minimizing legal and financial risks by transferring potential liabilities to the user",
"Maintaining control over legal disputes and reducing the likelihood of costly litigation",
"Protecting financial interests and ensuring users are aware of their responsibilities and potential liabilities"
],
"risk_score": "medium",
"why_so": "In related case law, courts have sometimes found overly broad indemnification clauses to be unenforceable, especially if they are deemed unconscionable or if they impose an unreasonable burden on the accepting party. For example, in the case of 'Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008)', the court upheld the enforceability of a broad indemnification clause, but in 'AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011)', the Supreme Court found certain arbitration clauses to be unconscionable. These cases illustrate that while indemnification clauses can be enforceable, there is a significant risk of them being challenged and potentially struck down if they are too one-sided.",
"recommendations": {
"for_accepting_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Challenge the indemnification clause",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 45 and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Review the indemnification clause for overly broad or misleading terms.",
"Gather evidence of potential financial burden and lack of clarity for the user.",
"File a complaint with the FTC citing 15 U.S.C. § 45 for unfair practices.",
"File a complaint in Washington state court citing RCW 19.86.020 for unfair or deceptive practices."
]
},
{
"action": "Negotiate for more balanced terms",
"legal_basis": "Contract law principles of fairness and unconscionability",
"steps": [
"Propose revisions to the indemnification clause to limit the scope and financial burden on the user.",
"Engage in negotiations with LinkedIn's legal team to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.",
"Ensure that the revised terms are clear and understandable to the user."
]
}
],
"for_offering_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Review and revise the indemnification clause",
"legal_basis": "Contract law principles and case law precedents",
"steps": [
"Assess the current indemnification clause for potential unconscionability and overreach.",
"Revise the clause to ensure it is fair, clear, and not overly burdensome to the user.",
"Include explanatory notes or examples to help users understand their responsibilities and potential liabilities."
]
},
{
"action": "Implement a risk management strategy",
"legal_basis": "Corporate governance and risk management principles",
"steps": [
"Conduct a risk assessment to identify potential legal and financial risks associated with the indemnification clause.",
"Develop a strategy to mitigate these risks, such as offering user education or support resources.",
"Regularly review and update the indemnification clause to ensure compliance with evolving legal standards."
]
}
],
"for_judges": [
{
"action": "Evaluate the fairness and enforceability of the indemnification clause",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 45, RCW 19.86.020, and relevant case law",
"steps": [
"Examine the specific terms of the indemnification clause in question.",
"Consider evidence presented by both parties regarding the clause's impact and fairness.",
"Apply relevant federal and state laws, as well as case law precedents, to determine if the clause is unconscionable or overly burdensome.",
"Issue a ruling that upholds the principles of fairness and consumer protection."
]
},
{
"action": "Provide guidance on acceptable indemnification practices",
"legal_basis": "Judicial authority and precedent-setting",
"steps": [
"Issue a detailed opinion outlining the factors that contribute to a fair and enforceable indemnification clause.",
"Highlight best practices for drafting such clauses to ensure they are not overly broad or misleading.",
"Encourage transparency and clarity in contractual terms to protect consumer rights."
]
}
]
}
}
}
{
"title_of_the_document": "End User License Agreement",
"section_header": "4. Restrictions",
"section_body": "You understand and agree that you shall only use the Software in a manner that complies with
any and all applicable laws in the jurisdictions in which you use the Software. Your use shall be
in accordance with applicable restrictions concerning privacy and intellectual property rights.
You may not:
Create derivative works based on the Software;
Use the Software for any purpose other than as described herein;
Copy or reproduce the Software except as described in this EULA;
Sell, assign, license, disclose, distribute or otherwise transfer or make available the Software or
any copies of the Software in any form to any third parties;
Alter, translate, decompile, reverse assemble or reverse engineer the Software, or attempt to do
any of the foregoing, except to the extent this prohibition is not permitted under an applicable
law; or
Remove or alter any proprietary notices or marks on the Software.",
"legal_review": {
"offering_party": "LinkedIn",
"accepting_party": "The individual or entity downloading, installing, or using the application",
"accepting_party_state": "Washington",
"key_issues": [
"The use of legal jargon that may not be easily understood by the average user.",
"Potential conflicts with local laws that provide more rights to the user, such as reverse engineering for interoperability purposes.",
"Restrictions on creating derivative works, reverse engineering, and transferring the software, which could be seen as overly restrictive."
],
"federal_and_state_laws_supporting_accepting_party_rights": [
{
"law": "17 U.S.C. § 117",
"why_this_law": "This law allows the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner. This supports the user's right to make necessary adaptations to the software, which could conflict with the restrictions on derivative works and reverse engineering.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title17-section117&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "RCW 19.86.020",
"state": "Washington",
"why_this_law": "This law prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce. If LinkedIn's restrictions are found to be overly restrictive or deceptive, they could be challenged under this law.",
"url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020"
}
],
"accepting_party_rights_being_potentially_violated": [
"The right to understand how the software works, especially for purposes of ensuring compatibility with other software.",
"The ability to customize or improve the software for their specific needs.",
"The right to sell or transfer their legally obtained software licenses."
],
"distribution_of_risks_factors_for_offering_party": [
"The risk of legal challenges if the restrictions are found to be overly restrictive or in conflict with local laws.",
"The potential for negative public perception if users feel their rights are being infringed upon."
],
"risk_score": "medium",
"why_so": "There have been several cases where software companies have faced legal challenges due to overly restrictive EULA terms. For example, in the case of 'Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. BnetD', the court ruled against the defendants who reverse-engineered Blizzard's software, but the case highlighted the legal complexities surrounding reverse engineering and user rights. Additionally, the 'Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.' case demonstrated that courts may allow reverse engineering for interoperability purposes. These cases suggest a medium probability of legal challenges if the EULA terms are perceived as overly restrictive.",
"recommendations": {
"for_accepting_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Challenge the EULA terms",
"legal_basis": "17 U.S.C. § 117 and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Review the EULA for overly restrictive terms on reverse engineering and derivative works.",
"File a complaint citing 17 U.S.C. § 117, arguing that necessary adaptations for software utilization are legally permissible.",
"Invoke RCW 19.86.020 to argue that the EULA terms are unfair or deceptive."
]
},
{
"action": "Seek declaratory judgment",
"legal_basis": "17 U.S.C. § 117",
"steps": [
"File a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the user has the right to make necessary adaptations for interoperability.",
"Present evidence of the necessity of such adaptations for the software's intended use."
]
}
],
"for_offering_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Revise EULA terms",
"legal_basis": "Compliance with federal and state laws",
"steps": [
"Review and amend the EULA to ensure it does not overly restrict reverse engineering and derivative works.",
"Include clear, user-friendly language to explain the terms and conditions."
]
},
{
"action": "Implement a risk management strategy",
"legal_basis": "Minimizing legal challenges",
"steps": [
"Conduct a legal audit to identify and mitigate potential conflicts with user rights.",
"Engage in public relations efforts to improve user perception and address concerns about restrictive terms."
]
}
],
"for_judges": [
{
"action": "Evaluate the fairness of EULA terms",
"legal_basis": "17 U.S.C. § 117 and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Assess whether the EULA terms are overly restrictive and if they conflict with the user's rights under 17 U.S.C. § 117.",
"Determine if the EULA terms constitute unfair or deceptive practices under RCW 19.86.020."
]
},
{
"action": "Consider precedents",
"legal_basis": "Case law",
"steps": [
"Review relevant case law such as 'Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. BnetD' and 'Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.'",
"Apply principles from these cases to determine the legality of the EULA terms in question."
]
}
]
}
}
}
{
"title_of_the_document": "End User License Agreement",
"section_header": "8. U.S. Government Restricted Rights",
"section_body": "By accepting delivery, the government agrees that the Software and accompanying
documentation qualifies as commercial computer software within the meaning of the
applicable acquisition regulations. The terms and conditions of this EULA govern the
government's use and disclosure of the Software and supersede any conflicting terms and
conditions. If this EULA fails to meet the government's needs or is inconsistent in any way with
federal law, the government must return the Software, unused, to LinkedIn.",
"legal_review": {
"offering_party": "LinkedIn",
"accepting_party": "The government",
"accepting_party_state": "N/A",
"key_issues": [
"Legal jargon and specific terms that may not be clear to non-legal professionals.",
"Potential inconsistency with federal law.",
"Practicality and feasibility of the return policy."
],
"federal_and_state_laws_supporting_accepting_party_rights": [
{
"law": "41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. - Contract Disputes Act of 1978",
"why_this_law": "The Contract Disputes Act provides a comprehensive framework for resolving disputes involving government contracts. It ensures that the government has a fair process for addressing any conflicts that arise from contractual terms, which could be relevant if the terms of the EULA are found to be inconsistent with federal law or impractical for the government to comply with.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title41/subtitle3/chapter71&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "10 U.S.C. § 2377 - Preference for acquisition of commercial items",
"why_this_law": "This law emphasizes the government's preference for acquiring commercial items, which includes commercial computer software. It supports the government's right to obtain software that meets its needs and is consistent with federal law, potentially conflicting with overly restrictive terms in the EULA.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section2377&num=0&edition=prelim"
}
],
"accepting_party_rights_being_potentially_violated": [
"The requirement to return the software if the terms are not acceptable could be seen as impractical or burdensome for the government.",
"The classification of the software as 'commercial computer software' might limit the government's ability to use or disclose the software in ways that are necessary for its operations.",
"The supersession clause could override other agreements or regulations that might be more favorable to the government."
],
"distribution_of_risks_factors_for_offering_party": [
"The 'supersession' clause could be legally risky as it attempts to override any conflicting terms and conditions, which might not always be enforceable, especially if those conflicting terms are mandated by federal law.",
"The 'return policy' might not be sufficient to protect LinkedIn if the government argues that the EULA is inherently unfair or non-compliant with federal procurement regulations."
],
"risk_score": "medium",
"why_so": "There have been instances where government agencies have challenged the terms of commercial software licenses, leading to legal disputes. For example, in the case of *Oracle America, Inc. v. United States*, the Court of Federal Claims addressed issues related to software licensing terms and their compliance with federal procurement regulations. Such cases indicate a medium probability of legal challenges arising from restrictive or non-compliant EULA terms.",
"recommendations": {
"for_accepting_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Challenge the EULA terms that are inconsistent with federal law.",
"legal_basis": "41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. - Contract Disputes Act of 1978",
"steps": [
"Review the EULA for any terms that conflict with federal procurement regulations.",
"File a formal dispute under the Contract Disputes Act if any terms are found to be non-compliant.",
"Seek a declaratory judgment to clarify the government's rights under the EULA."
]
},
{
"action": "Ensure the software is classified correctly to avoid restrictive terms.",
"legal_basis": "10 U.S.C. § 2377 - Preference for acquisition of commercial items",
"steps": [
"Verify that the software meets the criteria for 'commercial computer software' as defined by federal law.",
"Negotiate terms that align with the government's operational needs and legal requirements.",
"Consult with procurement officials to ensure compliance with federal acquisition regulations."
]
}
],
"for_offering_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Revise the 'supersession' clause to comply with federal law.",
"legal_basis": "Federal procurement regulations and case law (e.g., Oracle America, Inc. v. United States)",
"steps": [
"Review federal procurement regulations to identify any conflicting terms.",
"Amend the EULA to ensure it does not override mandatory federal terms and conditions.",
"Consult with legal experts in government contracts to ensure compliance."
]
},
{
"action": "Modify the return policy to be more practical for government use.",
"legal_basis": "Practicality and feasibility considerations under federal procurement guidelines",
"steps": [
"Assess the practicality of the current return policy for government operations.",
"Propose a revised return policy that is less burdensome and more feasible for government use.",
"Engage in discussions with government representatives to agree on a mutually acceptable return policy."
]
}
],
"for_judges": [
{
"action": "Ensure the EULA terms comply with federal law and are fair to both parties.",
"legal_basis": "41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. - Contract Disputes Act of 1978; 10 U.S.C. § 2377 - Preference for acquisition of commercial items",
"steps": [
"Review the EULA terms in light of federal procurement regulations and relevant case law.",
"Determine if any terms are overly restrictive or non-compliant with federal law.",
"Issue a ruling that ensures the EULA terms are fair and legally compliant, providing clear guidance for both parties."
]
}
]
}
}
}
{
"title_of_the_document": "End User License Agreement",
"section_header": "3. Title",
"section_body": "Title, ownership and all rights (including without limitation intellectual property rights) in and to
the Software shall remain with LinkedIn. Except for those rights expressly granted in this EULA,
no other rights are granted, whether express or implied.",
"legal_review": {
"offering_party": "LinkedIn",
"accepting_party": "The individual or entity downloading, installing, or using the application",
"accepting_party_state": "Washington",
"key_issues": [
"The extent of the rights granted to the user and the implications of not having any implied rights.",
"Potential legal risks if LinkedIn's actions or the software's functionality contradict the EULA.",
"Balancing LinkedIn's intellectual property protection with not overly restricting the user's ability to use the software."
],
"federal_and_state_laws_supporting_accepting_party_rights": [
{
"law": "17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use",
"why_this_law": "This law supports the accepting party's rights by allowing for certain uses of copyrighted material without permission from the rights holder, under the doctrine of fair use. This could include uses for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. The section in the EULA might be seen as overly restrictive if it does not acknowledge these fair use rights.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title17-section107&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "RCW 19.86.020: Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.",
"state": "Washington",
"why_this_law": "This law addresses the issue of unfair or deceptive practices in trade or commerce. If LinkedIn's EULA is found to be overly restrictive or misleading in a way that harms consumers, it could be challenged under this law. This law supports the accepting party's rights by ensuring that business practices are fair and not deceptive.",
"url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020"
}
],
"accepting_party_rights_being_potentially_violated": [
"The right to use the software in ways that are reasonable and do not harm LinkedIn.",
"The right to make modifications or improvements to the software.",
"The right to use the software in ways necessary for their specific needs."
],
"distribution_of_risks_factors_for_offering_party": [
"The clarity and restrictiveness of the EULA language.",
"Potential contradictions between LinkedIn's actions and the terms stated in the EULA.",
"The possibility of the EULA being challenged as unconscionable or overly restrictive."
],
"risk_score": "low",
"why_so": "Historically, cases involving EULAs and intellectual property rights often favor the offering party if the EULA is clear and unambiguous. However, there have been instances where overly restrictive or unconscionable terms have been successfully challenged. Given the clarity of LinkedIn's EULA and the practical necessity of protecting intellectual property, the probability of a successful lawsuit is low but not negligible.",
"recommendations": {
"for_accepting_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Challenge overly restrictive terms in the EULA",
"legal_basis": "17 U.S.C. § 107 - Fair Use",
"steps": [
"Review the EULA for clauses that may infringe on fair use rights.",
"Prepare arguments demonstrating how the EULA restricts fair use.",
"File a motion to modify or invalidate those specific clauses."
]
},
{
"action": "Address potential deceptive practices",
"legal_basis": "RCW 19.86.020 - Unfair or Deceptive Acts",
"steps": [
"Identify any EULA terms that could be considered misleading or unfair.",
"Gather evidence of how these terms harm consumers.",
"File a complaint with the Washington State Attorney General's Office or initiate a lawsuit."
]
}
],
"for_offering_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Ensure EULA clarity and fairness",
"legal_basis": "Contract Law - Unconscionability Doctrine",
"steps": [
"Review and revise the EULA to ensure all terms are clear and reasonable.",
"Include provisions that acknowledge fair use rights and reasonable user modifications.",
"Consult with legal experts to ensure compliance with both federal and state laws."
]
},
{
"action": "Monitor and align actions with EULA terms",
"legal_basis": "Contract Law - Good Faith and Fair Dealing",
"steps": [
"Regularly audit LinkedIn's practices to ensure they align with the EULA.",
"Implement internal policies to prevent actions that could contradict the EULA.",
"Provide training for employees on the importance of adhering to EULA terms."
]
}
],
"for_judges": [
{
"action": "Evaluate the reasonableness of EULA terms",
"legal_basis": "Contract Law - Reasonableness Standard",
"steps": [
"Examine the specific terms of the EULA in question.",
"Consider the balance between protecting LinkedIn's intellectual property and the user's rights.",
"Determine if any terms are overly restrictive or unconscionable."
]
},
{
"action": "Uphold fair use rights",
"legal_basis": "17 U.S.C. § 107 - Fair Use",
"steps": [
"Assess whether the EULA infringes on the user's fair use rights.",
"Consider the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the effect on the market.",
"Issue rulings that protect fair use while respecting the EULA's intent."
]
}
]
}
}
}
{
"title_of_the_document": "End User License Agreement",
"section_header": "1. Description of Software",
"section_body": "The Software is a downloadable software application that enables you to access LinkedIn
functionality directly from your Android, iPhone, iPad or other mobile device supported by
LinkedIn (Device). You may download the Software whether or not you use the LinkedIn
Service, but you must associate it with your LinkedIn account to enable its full functionality.",
"legal_review": {
"offering_party": "LinkedIn",
"accepting_party": "The individual or entity downloading, installing, or using the application",
"accepting_party_state": "Washington",
"key_issues": [
"Necessity of associating the Software with a LinkedIn account for full functionality",
"Lack of explicit disclaimers of warranties or limitations of liability",
"Potential data privacy concerns"
],
"federal_and_state_laws_supporting_accepting_party_rights": [
{
"law": "15 U.S.C. § 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission",
"why_this_law": "This law addresses unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. If LinkedIn's requirement to associate the Software with a LinkedIn account is deemed coercive or deceptive, it could be challenged under this statute.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section45&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "15 U.S.C. § 6801 - Protection of nonpublic personal information",
"why_this_law": "This law requires financial institutions to protect the privacy of consumers' personal information. While LinkedIn is not a financial institution, similar principles of data protection and privacy could be argued to apply, especially if the Software collects sensitive personal data.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section6801&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "RCW 19.86.020: Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.",
"state": "Washington",
"why_this_law": "This law supports the accepting party's rights by prohibiting unfair or deceptive practices. If LinkedIn's requirement to associate the Software with a LinkedIn account is deemed coercive or deceptive, this law could provide a basis for legal action to protect the user's rights.",
"url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020"
}
],
"accepting_party_rights_being_potentially_violated": [
"Privacy rights if personal data is collected without explicit consent or adequate disclosure",
"Freedom from coercion if users are required to associate the Software with a LinkedIn account without being fully informed about data sharing and usage"
],
"distribution_of_risks_factors_for_offering_party": [
"Legal risks due to lack of explicit disclaimers of warranties or limitations of liability",
"Potential legal challenges under data protection laws if privacy concerns are not adequately addressed",
"Reputational risks if users perceive the requirement to associate the Software with a LinkedIn account as coercive or deceptive"
],
"risk_score": "medium",
"why_so": "There have been several cases where companies faced legal challenges due to inadequate data privacy disclosures and coercive practices. For example, the FTC has taken action against companies for deceptive practices under 15 U.S.C. § 45. Additionally, data privacy concerns have led to significant legal actions under various state and federal laws, including the GDPR in Europe and CCPA in California.",
"recommendations": {
"for_accepting_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Challenge the requirement to associate the Software with a LinkedIn account",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 45 and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Gather evidence of the coercive nature of the requirement.",
"File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under 15 U.S.C. § 45.",
"Initiate a lawsuit in Washington state court under RCW 19.86.020."
]
},
{
"action": "Address potential data privacy concerns",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 6801",
"steps": [
"Investigate the types of personal data collected by the Software.",
"Ensure that LinkedIn provides explicit consent and adequate disclosure regarding data collection.",
"File a complaint with relevant data protection authorities if privacy violations are found."
]
}
],
"for_offering_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Implement explicit disclaimers of warranties and limitations of liability",
"legal_basis": "General contract law principles",
"steps": [
"Review and update the Software's terms of service to include clear disclaimers.",
"Ensure that users are required to acknowledge these disclaimers before using the Software.",
"Consult with legal experts to ensure compliance with relevant laws."
]
},
{
"action": "Enhance data privacy measures",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 6801 and similar data protection principles",
"steps": [
"Conduct a thorough data privacy audit of the Software.",
"Implement robust data protection measures and obtain explicit user consent.",
"Regularly review and update privacy policies to ensure compliance with evolving laws."
]
}
],
"for_judges": [
{
"action": "Evaluate the fairness and transparency of LinkedIn's practices",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 45 and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Examine evidence presented by both parties regarding the requirement to associate the Software with a LinkedIn account.",
"Assess whether LinkedIn's practices are coercive or deceptive under the relevant laws.",
"Issue a ruling that upholds the principles of fairness and transparency in commerce."
]
},
{
"action": "Ensure data privacy rights are protected",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 6801 and similar data protection principles",
"steps": [
"Review the adequacy of LinkedIn's data privacy disclosures and consent mechanisms.",
"Determine if LinkedIn's data collection practices violate privacy rights.",
"Provide remedies that protect users' privacy rights and ensure compliance with data protection laws."
]
}
]
}
}
}
{
"title_of_the_document": "End User License Agreement",
"section_header": "11. Limitation of Liability",
"section_body": "YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT LINKEDIN SHALL NOT BE LIABLE
FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF LINKEDIN HAS BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES). IN NO EVENT WILL LINKEDIN'S
AGGREGATE LIABILITY TO YOU EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF LICENSING FEES PAID BY
YOU TO LINKEDIN. THESE LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS WILL APPLY
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY LIMITED REMEDY.
SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATIONS OF DAMAGES AND/OR
EXCLUSIONS OF LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.
ACCORDINGLY, SOME OF THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.",
"legal_review": {
"offering_party": "LinkedIn",
"accepting_party": "The individual or entity downloading, installing, or using the application",
"accepting_party_state": "Washington",
"key_issues": [
"Complex legal jargon that may not be easily understood by the average user.",
"Extensive limitation of liability that may not be enforceable in all jurisdictions.",
"Potential infringement on the user's ability to seek full compensation for damages."
],
"federal_and_state_laws_supporting_accepting_party_rights": [
{
"law": "15 U.S.C. § 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission",
"why_this_law": "This law addresses unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. If LinkedIn's limitation of liability is deemed unfair or deceptive, it could be challenged under this statute. The law supports the accepting party's rights by ensuring that companies cannot impose overly restrictive or unfair terms that limit consumer protections.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section45&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "15 U.S.C. § 2301 - Definitions (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act)",
"why_this_law": "The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act provides protections for consumers against unfair warranty terms. If LinkedIn's limitation of liability is considered a form of warranty, this law could be used to argue that such limitations are unfair and unenforceable.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section2301&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "RCW 19.86.020: Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.",
"state": "Washington",
"why_this_law": "This law supports the rights of consumers by prohibiting unfair or deceptive practices. The extensive limitation of liability in LinkedIn's EULA could be seen as an unfair practice if it significantly disadvantages the user. This law provides a basis for challenging such limitations in Washington state.",
"url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020"
}
],
"accepting_party_rights_being_potentially_violated": [
"The right to seek full compensation for damages incurred due to LinkedIn's actions or negligence.",
"The right to recover losses related to data breaches, loss of profits, or other significant impacts.",
"The right to pursue legitimate claims without being discouraged by broad limitations of liability."
],
"distribution_of_risks_factors_for_offering_party": [
"LinkedIn reduces potential financial losses from lawsuits by limiting liability.",
"LinkedIn maintains control over the legal risks associated with its services, ensuring that potential liabilities do not disrupt its business operations."
],
"risk_score": "medium",
"why_so": "Historically, companies with similar limitation of liability clauses have faced legal challenges, especially in jurisdictions that do not permit such extensive limitations. For example, in the case of 'Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.,' the court found that certain terms were not enforceable because they were not reasonably communicated to the user. Additionally, the 'AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion' case highlighted the limitations of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. These cases indicate a medium probability of LinkedIn facing legal challenges due to this section.",
"recommendations": {
"for_accepting_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Challenge the limitation of liability clause",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission",
"steps": [
"Review LinkedIn's EULA for unfair or deceptive practices.",
"File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if the clause is deemed unfair.",
"Gather evidence of how the clause disadvantages users."
]
},
{
"action": "Argue the limitation of liability as an unfair warranty term",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 2301 - Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act",
"steps": [
"Analyze the EULA to determine if the limitation of liability functions as a warranty.",
"Prepare arguments that the limitation is unfair under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.",
"Present these arguments in court or during negotiations."
]
},
{
"action": "Invoke state consumer protection laws",
"legal_basis": "RCW 19.86.020 - Washington State Consumer Protection Act",
"steps": [
"File a complaint under the Washington State Consumer Protection Act.",
"Demonstrate how the limitation of liability is an unfair or deceptive practice.",
"Seek remedies available under state law, including damages and injunctive relief."
]
}
],
"for_offering_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Review and revise the limitation of liability clause",
"legal_basis": "Compliance with federal and state consumer protection laws",
"steps": [
"Conduct a legal review of the current EULA.",
"Revise the limitation of liability clause to ensure it is fair and transparent.",
"Include clear language that is easily understood by the average user."
]
},
{
"action": "Implement a risk management strategy",
"legal_basis": "Minimizing legal exposure and maintaining business operations",
"steps": [
"Develop a comprehensive risk management plan.",
"Ensure that all terms in the EULA are compliant with relevant laws.",
"Regularly update the EULA to reflect changes in legal standards and best practices."
]
}
],
"for_judges": [
{
"action": "Evaluate the fairness of the limitation of liability clause",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 45 and RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Assess whether the clause is unfair or deceptive under federal and state laws.",
"Consider the impact of the clause on the accepting party's rights.",
"Issue a ruling that balances the interests of both parties while upholding consumer protection laws."
]
},
{
"action": "Ensure compliance with consumer protection statutes",
"legal_basis": "15 U.S.C. § 2301 - Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act",
"steps": [
"Determine if the limitation of liability constitutes a warranty term.",
"Evaluate the fairness of the term under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.",
"Provide guidance on how such terms should be structured to comply with the law."
]
}
]
}
}
}
{
"title_of_the_document": "End User License Agreement",
"section_header": "13. General",
"section_body": "If you live in the Designated Countries: a) you and LinkedIn Ireland agree that the laws of
Ireland, excluding conflict of laws rules, shall exclusively govern any dispute relating to this
EULA, the Software and/or LinkedIn Service; and b) you and LinkedIn Ireland agree that claims
and disputes can be litigated only in Dublin, Ireland, and we each agree to personal jurisdiction
of the courts located in Dublin, Ireland. For others outside of Designated Countries, including
those who live outside of the United States: a) you and LinkedIn agree that the laws of the State
of California, U.S.A., excluding its conflict of laws rules, shall exclusively govern any dispute
relating to this EULA, the Software and/or LinkedIn Service; and b) you and LinkedIn both agree
that all claims and disputes can be litigated only in the federal or state courts in Santa Clara
County, California, USA, and you and LinkedIn each agree to personal jurisdiction in those
courts. This EULA constitutes the entire agreement between you and LinkedIn regarding the
Software. If any provision of this EULA is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary
to law, such provision will be changed and interpreted so as to best accomplish the objectives of
the original provision to the fullest extent allowed by law and the remaining provisions of this
EULA will remain in full force and effect. You may not assign this EULA, and any assignment of
this EULA by you will be null and void. LinkedIn, LinkedIn (stylized), the in logos, and other
LinkedIn-owned logos and names are trademarks of LinkedIn and its affiliates. You agree not to
display or use these trademarks in any manner without LinkedIn's prior, written permission. The
section titles and numbering of this EULA are displayed for convenience and have no legal
effect.",
"legal_review": {
"offering_party": "LinkedIn",
"accepting_party": "The individual or entity downloading, installing, or using the application",
"accepting_party_state": "Washington",
"key_issues": [
"Jurisdiction and governing law clauses that may be seen as overly restrictive or unfair to the accepting party.",
"The lack of definition for 'Designated Countries,' which could lead to confusion about applicable laws.",
"The severability clause may not fully protect LinkedIn if a critical provision is found unenforceable.",
"The assignment clause restricts the accepting party's ability to transfer their rights under the EULA."
],
"federal_and_state_laws_supporting_accepting_party_rights": [
{
"law": "28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) - Change of Venue",
"why_this_law": "This law allows for the transfer of a case to a different district court for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It supports the accepting party's right to request a more convenient forum if the designated jurisdiction is overly burdensome.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section1404&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "15 U.S.C. § 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission",
"why_this_law": "This law addresses unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. If the jurisdiction and governing law clauses are deemed to be unfair or deceptive, this statute could provide a basis for challenging those provisions.",
"url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section45&num=0&edition=prelim"
},
{
"law": "RCW 19.86.020",
"state": "Washington",
"why_this_law": "This law prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce. The requirement to litigate disputes in distant jurisdictions could be seen as an unfair practice, as it imposes undue burdens on the accepting party, potentially deterring them from seeking legal recourse.",
"url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020"
}
],
"accepting_party_rights_being_potentially_violated": [
"The right to a fair and convenient legal process, as the designated jurisdictions may impose significant travel and legal costs.",
"The right to transfer software licenses, which could be restricted by the assignment clause.",
"The right to use LinkedIn's trademarks in certain contexts without prior permission, which is restricted by the trademarks clause."
],
"distribution_of_risks_factors_for_offering_party": [
"The jurisdiction and governing law clauses could be challenged as being overly restrictive or unfair.",
"The severability clause may not fully protect LinkedIn if a critical provision is found unenforceable.",
"The assignment clause could be seen as overly restrictive, especially in cases of business mergers or acquisitions."
],
"risk_score": "medium",
"why_so": "There have been numerous cases where jurisdiction and governing law clauses have been challenged in court. For example, in the case of Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a forum selection clause, but the decision was controversial and highlighted the potential for such clauses to be seen as unfair. Additionally, in the case of Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court, 571 U.S. 49 (2013), the Supreme Court reinforced the enforceability of forum selection clauses but also acknowledged that they could be subject to challenge under certain circumstances.",
"recommendations": {
"for_accepting_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Challenge the jurisdiction and governing law clauses",
"legal_basis": "28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and 15 U.S.C. § 45",
"steps": [
"File a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) if the designated jurisdiction is overly burdensome.",
"Argue that the jurisdiction and governing law clauses are unfair or deceptive under 15 U.S.C. § 45.",
"Gather evidence showing the inconvenience and potential unfairness of the designated jurisdiction."
]
},
{
"action": "Challenge the assignment clause",
"legal_basis": "RCW 19.86.020",
"steps": [
"Argue that the assignment clause imposes an unfair restriction on the accepting party's ability to transfer their rights.",
"Provide examples of how the clause could negatively impact business operations, such as in mergers or acquisitions.",
"Seek a declaratory judgment that the clause is unenforceable under Washington state law."
]
}
],
"for_offering_party_lawyers": [
{
"action": "Reevaluate and potentially revise the jurisdiction and governing law clauses",
"legal_basis": "Case precedents like Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute and Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court",
"steps": [
"Conduct a risk assessment to determine the likelihood of challenges to these clauses.",
"Consider offering more flexible jurisdiction options or clarifying the rationale behind the chosen jurisdiction.",
"Update the EULA to include a more balanced approach to jurisdiction and governing law."
]
},
{
"action": "Clarify the definition of 'Designated Countries'",
"legal_basis": "Contract clarity and enforceability principles",
"steps": [
"Provide a clear and comprehensive definition of 'Designated Countries' within the EULA.",
"Ensure that the definition aligns with applicable laws and regulations.",
"Communicate any changes to existing users to avoid confusion and potential legal challenges."
]
}
],
"for_judges": [
{
"action": "Evaluate the fairness of the jurisdiction and governing law clauses",
"legal_basis": "28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and relevant case law",
"steps": [
"Assess whether the designated jurisdiction imposes undue burdens on the accepting party.",
"Consider the principles established in cases like Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute and Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court.",
"Determine if a transfer of venue is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)."
]
},
{
"action": "Assess the enforceability of the assignment clause",
"legal_basis": "RCW 19.86.020 and general contract law principles",
"steps": [
"Examine whether the assignment clause constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice under Washington state law.",
"Consider the impact of the clause on the accepting party's business operations.",
"Issue a ruling on the enforceability of the clause based on the evidence presented."
]
}
]
}
}
}
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment