Created
June 11, 2024 00:58
-
-
Save innerop/9c7766dfc3544256bed0475ef68cf62d to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| { | |
| "section_header": "3. Title", | |
| "analysis": [ | |
| { | |
| "clause": "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.", | |
| "reasoning": { | |
| "federal_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "notes": "The Fair Use Doctrine under 17 U.S.C. § 107 allows for certain uses of copyrighted material without permission from the rights holders. This can be relevant in arguing that the EULA's restrictions are overly broad and infringe on the user's fair use rights.", | |
| "issue": "The clause can infringe user rights by limiting their use of the software to only those rights expressly granted, potentially excluding reasonable uses that are not explicitly mentioned.", | |
| "law": "17 U.S.C. § 107 (Fair Use Doctrine)", | |
| "relevance": "The Fair Use Doctrine, as outlined in 17 U.S.C. § 107, provides exceptions to copyright restrictions. This can be used to argue that the End User License Agreement (EULA) is too restrictive in its limitations on implied rights, potentially infringing on the user's ability to make fair use of the software.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title17/chapter1&edition=prelim", | |
| "federal_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "1. Identify the specific rights granted to the user under the EULA.", | |
| "2. Demonstrate that the clause limits the user's rights to only those expressly granted, excluding any implied rights.", | |
| "3. Argue that such a limitation may be overly restrictive and could potentially infringe on the user's ability to use the software in a reasonable manner.", | |
| "4. Cite relevant federal laws that protect consumer rights and fair use, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the Fair Use Doctrine.", | |
| "5. Present case law where similar clauses were deemed overly restrictive or unfair to the user." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "state_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "state": "California", | |
| "notes": "California's unconscionability doctrine can be a strong basis for arguing that the clause is overly restrictive and fails to provide adequate notice to the offeree. This could potentially lead to the clause being modified or struck down in court.", | |
| "issue": "The clause could be seen as overly restrictive by not granting any implied rights, which may limit the offeree's ability to use the software in ways that are considered fair use under state law.", | |
| "law": "Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5 (West 2023)", | |
| "relevance": "California Civil Code Section 1670.5 allows a court to refuse to enforce a contract or any clause within it if it finds that the contract or clause was unconscionable at the time it was made. The court has the discretion to either refuse to enforce the entire contract, enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or limit the application of the unconscionable clause to avoid any unfair result. In this context, the clause in question could be considered unconscionable if it is overly restrictive and does not provide adequate notice to the offeree about the limitations on their rights.", | |
| "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1670.5&lawCode=CIV", | |
| "state_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific rights that the offeree believes are being infringed upon.", | |
| "Demonstrate that the clause in question is overly broad or restrictive, potentially violating state laws on fair use or consumer protection.", | |
| "Provide examples of how similar clauses have been interpreted in previous cases within the state.", | |
| "Argue that the clause fails to provide adequate notice to the offeree about the limitations on their rights, which could be considered unconscionable under state law.", | |
| "Present any evidence that the clause is not in line with public policy or state-specific regulations regarding software licenses and intellectual property." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "legal_rights_potentially_violated": [ | |
| { | |
| "right": "Fair Use", | |
| "description": "The clause limits the user's ability to make fair use of the software, which is protected under the Fair Use Doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 107). This doctrine allows for certain uses of copyrighted material without permission from the rights holders, such as for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. By restricting the user's rights to only those expressly granted, the clause may infringe upon these fair use rights." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Implied Rights", | |
| "description": "The clause explicitly states that no other rights are granted, whether express or implied. This can be overly restrictive as it excludes any reasonable uses of the software that are not explicitly mentioned in the EULA. Implied rights often include the ability to use the software in a manner consistent with its intended purpose, which may not be fully covered by the express rights granted." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Consumer Protection", | |
| "description": "Under state laws such as California's unconscionability doctrine (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5), the clause could be seen as overly restrictive and failing to provide adequate notice to the offeree about the limitations on their rights. This could be considered unconscionable and against public policy, potentially leading to the clause being modified or struck down in court." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Reasonable Use", | |
| "description": "The clause may infringe on the user's ability to use the software in a reasonable manner. Reasonable use includes activities that a typical user would expect to be able to perform with the software, which may not be explicitly covered by the express rights granted in the EULA. This limitation can be seen as unfair and overly restrictive." | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| { | |
| "section_header": "1. Description of Software", | |
| "analysis": [ | |
| { | |
| "clause": "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.", | |
| "reasoning": { | |
| "federal_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "notes": "The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) protects against unauthorized interception of electronic communications. Requiring users to associate their LinkedIn account with the software could lead to unauthorized access to their communications and data, potentially violating the ECPA.", | |
| "issue": "The clause may infringe on user privacy and autonomy by requiring the association of the software with a LinkedIn account for full functionality, potentially leading to unauthorized data collection and usage.", | |
| "law": "Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523", | |
| "relevance": "The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) is designed to protect against the unauthorized interception of electronic communications. This is relevant to the clause in question because the requirement for users to associate their accounts could potentially lead to unauthorized access to their data. Forcing users to link their accounts might result in the collection of data without their consent, which could be a violation of the ECPA.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter119&edition=prelim", | |
| "federal_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific rights that may be infringed by the clause, such as privacy rights or consumer protection rights.", | |
| "Present evidence that the clause requires users to associate their LinkedIn account with the software for full functionality, potentially infringing on user autonomy and privacy.", | |
| "Cite relevant federal laws that protect consumer rights and privacy, demonstrating how the clause may violate these laws.", | |
| "Argue that the requirement to associate the software with a LinkedIn account for full functionality is an unfair practice that could mislead or coerce users." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "state_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "state": "California", | |
| "notes": "The clause should be reviewed to ensure it complies with the CCPA, particularly in terms of informing users about data collection and providing options to manage their data. Any limitations on software functionality based on account association should be clearly disclosed and justified.", | |
| "issue": "The clause may limit the user's ability to fully utilize the software without associating it with a LinkedIn account, potentially infringing on their right to freely use the software they have downloaded.", | |
| "law": "California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.", | |
| "relevance": "The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) aims to enhance privacy rights and consumer protection for residents of California. Key provisions of the CCPA include the right to know what personal data is being collected, the right to delete personal data, the right to opt-out of the sale of personal data, and the right to non-discrimination for exercising privacy rights. In relation to the requirement to associate the software with a LinkedIn account, this may involve the collection of personal data. Therefore, users should be informed of their rights under the CCPA, including the right to know what data is collected and the right to delete their data.", | |
| "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=3.&part=4.&lawCode=CIV&title=1.81.5", | |
| "state_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific rights granted to users under the clause.", | |
| "Compare these rights with the protections offered under the relevant state law.", | |
| "Highlight any discrepancies or limitations imposed by the clause that may infringe upon user rights.", | |
| "Present case law or precedents where similar clauses were deemed unenforceable or modified to protect user rights.", | |
| "Argue that the clause should be interpreted or modified to align with state law protections." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "legal_rights_potentially_violated": [ | |
| { | |
| "right": "Privacy Rights", | |
| "reasoning": "The requirement to associate the software with a LinkedIn account for full functionality could lead to unauthorized access to user data and communications. This may infringe upon users' privacy rights as protected under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). The ECPA is designed to prevent unauthorized interception and access to electronic communications, and forcing users to link their accounts could result in unauthorized data collection and usage." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Consumer Protection Rights", | |
| "reasoning": "The clause may mislead or coerce users into associating their LinkedIn account with the software to access its full functionality. This practice could be considered unfair and deceptive, potentially violating consumer protection laws. Users should be able to make informed decisions without being forced into linking their accounts, which could be seen as an infringement on their autonomy and consumer rights." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Know", | |
| "reasoning": "Under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), users have the right to know what personal data is being collected about them. The clause should clearly inform users about the data collection practices associated with linking their LinkedIn account to the software. Failure to provide this information could violate the CCPA's provisions." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Delete Personal Data", | |
| "reasoning": "The CCPA grants users the right to delete their personal data. If the software collects personal data upon account association, users should be informed of their right to delete this data. The clause should ensure that users can exercise this right without facing limitations on the software's functionality." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Opt-Out of Data Sale", | |
| "reasoning": "The CCPA also provides users with the right to opt-out of the sale of their personal data. The clause should disclose whether any data collected through account association is sold to third parties and provide users with the option to opt-out. Failure to do so could infringe upon this right." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Non-Discrimination", | |
| "reasoning": "The CCPA protects users from discrimination for exercising their privacy rights. The clause should ensure that users who choose not to associate their LinkedIn account with the software are not discriminated against by being denied access to essential functionalities. Any limitations on functionality should be clearly justified and not punitive." | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| { | |
| "section_header": "8. U.S. Government Restricted Rights", | |
| "analysis": [ | |
| { | |
| "clause": "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.", | |
| "reasoning": { | |
| "federal_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "notes": "FAR 12.212 specifically addresses the acquisition of commercial computer software and documentation by the government, stating that such acquisitions must be consistent with customary commercial practice. This regulation would take precedence over any conflicting terms in the EULA.", | |
| "issue": "The clause could infringe the government's rights by imposing terms that are inconsistent with federal procurement laws and regulations, potentially limiting the government's ability to use and disclose the software as needed for public purposes.", | |
| "law": "Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 12.212", | |
| "relevance": "FAR 12.212 is a regulation that oversees how the government acquires commercial computer software. It mandates that these acquisitions follow standard commercial practices. Therefore, the terms of the End User License Agreement (EULA) must comply with this regulation. If there are any conflicting terms between the EULA and FAR 12.212, the regulation will take precedence.", | |
| "url": "https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-12#FAR_12_212", | |
| "federal_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific federal law or regulation that the EULA may conflict with.", | |
| "Demonstrate how the EULA's terms are inconsistent with the identified federal law.", | |
| "Argue that federal law supersedes the EULA based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.", | |
| "Present evidence that the governmentâs acceptance of the EULA was under duress or without proper negotiation, if applicable.", | |
| "Highlight any public policy considerations that favor the governmentâs position." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "state_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "state": "California", | |
| "notes": "California's unconscionability statute provides a strong basis for challenging EULA terms that are overly restrictive or unfair to the government. By demonstrating that the EULA terms are unconscionable, the government can argue for more favorable terms or the nullification of the problematic clauses.", | |
| "issue": "The clause may infringe on the government's rights by imposing terms that are inconsistent with state laws governing software procurement and usage by government entities.", | |
| "law": "California Civil Code § 1670.5 - Unconscionable Contracts", | |
| "relevance": "If a court determines that the End User License Agreement (EULA) or any of its clauses were unconscionable at the time they were created, the court has the authority to either refuse to enforce the entire contract or to enforce the contract without the unconscionable clause. Specifically, terms within the EULA that override conflicting terms and conditions or mandate the return of the software if they conflict with federal law could be considered unconscionable if they place the government at an unfair disadvantage.", | |
| "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1670.5&lawCode=CIV", | |
| "state_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific terms in the EULA that may conflict with state law.", | |
| "Demonstrate how the EULA's terms could potentially infringe upon the rights provided under state law.", | |
| "Present case law or precedents where similar EULA terms were found to be unenforceable or modified by the court.", | |
| "Argue that the state law provides greater protection to the government entity and should therefore take precedence over the EULA terms." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "legal_rights_potentially_violated": [ | |
| { | |
| "right": "Adherence to Federal Acquisition Regulations", | |
| "description": "The clause may violate the government's right to procure software under the terms set forth by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 12.212. This regulation mandates that the acquisition of commercial computer software by the government must be consistent with customary commercial practices. The EULA's terms that supersede any conflicting terms and conditions could be inconsistent with FAR 12.212, thereby infringing on the government's procurement rights." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Supremacy of Federal Law", | |
| "description": "The clause could infringe upon the government's right to have federal law take precedence over conflicting contractual terms. According to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law overrides conflicting state or contractual provisions. The EULA's stipulation that its terms govern the government's use and disclosure of the software, even if inconsistent with federal law, could violate this principle." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Fair Contract Terms", | |
| "description": "The clause may violate the government's right to fair and reasonable contract terms. Under California Civil Code § 1670.5, contracts or clauses that are deemed unconscionable at the time they were made can be modified or nullified by the court. The EULA's terms that override conflicting terms and conditions or mandate the return of the software if they conflict with federal law could be considered unconscionable, placing the government at an unfair disadvantage." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Proper Negotiation and Acceptance", | |
| "description": "The clause could infringe upon the government's right to proper negotiation and acceptance of contract terms. If the government accepted the EULA under duress or without proper negotiation, the terms may not be enforceable. The EULA's stipulation that its terms govern the government's use and disclosure of the software, even if inconsistent with federal law, could be challenged on the grounds of improper acceptance." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Public Policy Considerations", | |
| "description": "The clause may violate the government's right to act in the public interest. Public policy considerations often favor the government's ability to use and disclose software as needed for public purposes. The EULA's restrictive terms could limit the government's ability to fulfill its public duties, thereby infringing on this right." | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| { | |
| "section_header": "7. Right to Terminate or Modify Software", | |
| "analysis": [ | |
| { | |
| "clause": "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.", | |
| "reasoning": { | |
| "federal_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "notes": "This law provides consumer protections for electronic fund transfers, ensuring that consumers are given clear and fair terms. While it specifically addresses electronic fund transfers, the principles of fairness and transparency in consumer contracts can be applied to argue against the unilateral modification clause in the EULA.", | |
| "issue": "The clause allows LinkedIn to unilaterally modify the EULA without notice, which can lead to unfair and unexpected changes that the user did not agree to. This lack of mutual consent and notice can be seen as an infringement on the user's rights to a fair contract.", | |
| "law": "15 U.S.C. § 1693l-1 - Consumer Protections for Electronic Fund Transfers", | |
| "relevance": "The consumer protections mandate that terms must be clear and fair, and prohibit any unilateral changes without notice. LinkedIn's right to modify terms violates the requirement for clear and fair terms, and the lack of notice contradicts the prohibition of unilateral changes without notice.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section1693l-1&num=0&edition=prelim", | |
| "federal_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "1. Identify the imbalance of power in the clause, where LinkedIn can modify the EULA without notice.", | |
| "2. Highlight the lack of mutual consent for modifications, which is a fundamental principle in contract law.", | |
| "3. Argue that the clause is unconscionable because it allows one party to unilaterally change the terms without the other party's agreement.", | |
| "4. Reference specific federal laws that protect consumers from unfair contract terms." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "state_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "state": "California", | |
| "notes": "California law provides a strong basis for arguing that a clause allowing unilateral modifications without notice is unconscionable. This can be used to protect user rights by requiring fair notice and consent for any changes to the EULA.", | |
| "issue": "The clause allows LinkedIn to modify the EULA and the Software without notice, which can lead to unexpected changes that the user did not agree to, thus infringing on the user's rights to be informed and to consent to contract terms.", | |
| "law": "Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5", | |
| "relevance": "According to California Civil Code Section 1670.5, if a court determines that a contract or any part of it was unconscionable at the time it was made, the court has several options. It can refuse to enforce the entire contract, enforce the rest of the contract without the unconscionable part, or limit the application of the unconscionable part to avoid an unfair result. In the context of LinkedIn's End User License Agreement (EULA), the clause that allows LinkedIn to modify the agreement without notice could be considered unconscionable under California law. This is because it creates a significant imbalance of power and could lead to unfair surprises for the user.", | |
| "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1670.5", | |
| "state_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the clause in the EULA that allows LinkedIn to modify the agreement without notice.", | |
| "Argue that this clause creates an imbalance of power, as it allows LinkedIn to unilaterally change the terms without the user's consent.", | |
| "Cite the relevant state law that requires fair notice for contract modifications.", | |
| "Explain how the lack of notice can lead to unfair surprise and prejudice against the user.", | |
| "Request the judge to declare the clause unenforceable or to require LinkedIn to provide reasonable notice before any modifications." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "legal_rights_potentially_violated": [ | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Fair and Transparent Contract Terms", | |
| "reasoning": "The clause allowing LinkedIn to unilaterally modify the EULA without notice violates the principle of fairness and transparency in consumer contracts. Users are entitled to clear and fair terms, and any changes to the contract should be mutually agreed upon." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Mutual Consent in Contract Modifications", | |
| "reasoning": "Contract law fundamentally requires mutual consent for any modifications. The clause in question allows LinkedIn to change the terms without the user's agreement, undermining this essential principle." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Notice of Contract Changes", | |
| "reasoning": "Users have the right to be informed of any changes to the contract terms. The lack of notice in the clause can lead to unexpected and potentially unfair changes, infringing on the user's right to be adequately informed." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Protection Against Unconscionable Contract Terms", | |
| "reasoning": "The clause can be considered unconscionable as it creates a significant imbalance of power, allowing LinkedIn to impose changes unilaterally. This can lead to unfair surprises and prejudice against the user, which is protected against under both federal and state laws." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Consumer Protections for Electronic Transactions", | |
| "reasoning": "Federal laws, such as 15 U.S.C. § 1693l-1, mandate that terms must be clear and fair, and prohibit unilateral changes without notice. The clause violates these consumer protections by allowing LinkedIn to modify terms without informing the user." | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| { | |
| "section_header": "12. Export Restrictions", | |
| "analysis": [ | |
| { | |
| "clause": "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.", | |
| "reasoning": { | |
| "federal_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "notes": "The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) govern the export and re-export of most commercial items, including software, from the United States. Compliance with these regulations is essential for any entity involved in the export of software. The clause in the EULA must be carefully drafted to ensure that it does not impose unreasonable or overly broad restrictions on the offeree.", | |
| "issue": "The clause can infringe on the offeree's rights by imposing overly broad and potentially unreasonable restrictions on the import, export, re-export, transfer, or use of the software. This can limit the offeree's ability to conduct business and may result in legal and financial penalties if the offeree is unable to comply with the complex and varied export control laws of different countries.", | |
| "law": "Export Administration Regulations (EAR), 15 C.F.R. §§ 730-774", | |
| "relevance": "The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) govern the export and re-export of most commercial items, including software, from the United States. Compliance with these regulations requires adherence to specific licensing requirements, end-use and end-user restrictions, and reporting and record-keeping obligations. The clause in the End User License Agreement (EULA) references compliance with export control laws, which includes the EAR. The offeree must ensure that their actions are in compliance with these regulations to avoid legal and financial penalties.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/", | |
| "federal_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific export control laws that apply to the software in question.", | |
| "Demonstrate that the offeree has complied with all relevant export control laws.", | |
| "Argue that the clause is overly broad and imposes unreasonable restrictions on the offeree.", | |
| "Present evidence that the offeree has taken all necessary steps to ensure compliance with export control laws.", | |
| "Highlight any ambiguities or inconsistencies in the clause that could be interpreted in favor of the offeree." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "state_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "state": "California", | |
| "notes": "California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) can be used to argue that the clause is unfair and overly restrictive, potentially leading to legal penalties for users even if they are making a good faith effort to comply with export control laws.", | |
| "issue": "The clause can infringe user rights by imposing overly broad and vague restrictions that go beyond what is required by law, potentially leading to legal penalties even for users who are trying to comply in good faith.", | |
| "law": "California Business and Professions Code § 17200", | |
| "relevance": "California Business and Professions Code § 17200 prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. The clause could be considered an unfair business practice if it imposes overly broad and vague restrictions that go beyond what is required by law, potentially leading to legal penalties for users.", | |
| "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC§ionNum=17200", | |
| "state_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific export control laws and regulations that apply to the software in question.", | |
| "Demonstrate how the clause imposes additional burdens or restrictions beyond what is required by these laws.", | |
| "Argue that the clause is overly broad and vague, making it difficult for the user to understand their obligations.", | |
| "Show that the clause could potentially lead to penalties or legal issues for the user, even if they are making a good faith effort to comply with the law.", | |
| "Present case law or legal precedents where similar clauses have been found to be unenforceable or overly restrictive." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "legal_rights_potentially_violated": [ | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Fair Business Practices", | |
| "reasoning": "The clause may impose overly broad and vague restrictions that go beyond what is required by law, potentially leading to legal penalties for users even if they are making a good faith effort to comply with export control laws. This can be seen as an unfair business practice under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL)." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Conduct Business", | |
| "reasoning": "The clause can limit the offeree's ability to conduct business by imposing unreasonable restrictions on the import, export, re-export, transfer, or use of the software. This can hinder the offeree's business operations and competitiveness in the global market." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Clear and Understandable Contract Terms", | |
| "reasoning": "The clause's broad and potentially vague language can make it difficult for the offeree to understand their obligations, leading to confusion and potential non-compliance. This violates the offeree's right to clear and understandable contract terms." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Due Process", | |
| "reasoning": "By imposing restrictions that may lead to legal and financial penalties without clear guidelines, the clause can infringe on the offeree's right to due process. The offeree may face penalties despite making efforts to comply with the law, which is unjust." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Reasonable Contractual Obligations", | |
| "reasoning": "The clause may impose additional burdens or restrictions beyond what is required by export control laws, which can be seen as unreasonable. This infringes on the offeree's right to have reasonable and fair contractual obligations." | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| { | |
| "section_header": "5. Personal Information and Privacy", | |
| "analysis": [ | |
| { | |
| "clause": "Our handling of personal information we collect through the LinkedIn Services or the Software is | |
| governed by the LinkedIn Privacy Policy.", | |
| "reasoning": { | |
| "federal_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "notes": "The Privacy Act of 1974 governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally identifiable information by federal agencies. While LinkedIn is not a federal agency, the principles of the Privacy Act can be used to argue for higher standards of personal information protection.", | |
| "issue": "The clause may infringe on user rights by not adequately protecting personal information as required by federal privacy laws. If LinkedIn's Privacy Policy does not comply with these laws, users' personal information could be mishandled or exposed to unauthorized access.", | |
| "law": "Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a", | |
| "relevance": "The Privacy Act of 1974, cited as 5 U.S.C. § 552a, establishes standards for the protection of personal information. The relevant clause should ensure that LinkedIn's Privacy Policy meets or exceeds these standards to adequately protect user information.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title5/part1/chapter5/subchapter2&edition=prelim", | |
| "federal_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific personal information being collected and how it is being used.", | |
| "Compare the practices described in the LinkedIn Privacy Policy with the requirements of the relevant federal law.", | |
| "Demonstrate any discrepancies or violations of the federal law by LinkedIn's practices.", | |
| "Argue that the clause does not provide sufficient protection for personal information as required by the federal law." | |
| ] | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "notes": "The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires financial institutions to explain their information-sharing practices to their customers and to safeguard sensitive data. While LinkedIn is not a financial institution, the principles of data protection and privacy can be applied to argue for stronger safeguards for user information.", | |
| "issue": "The clause may fail to ensure that LinkedIn's data protection practices comply with federal standards, potentially leading to unauthorized access, misuse, or exposure of personal information.", | |
| "law": "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801-6809", | |
| "relevance": "The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, cited as 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801-6809, underscores the critical importance of safeguarding personal information. Consequently, LinkedIn's Privacy Policy must incorporate comprehensive data protection measures that are consistent with the principles outlined in this Act.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title15/chapter94&edition=prelim", | |
| "federal_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Examine the specific data protection measures outlined in the LinkedIn Privacy Policy.", | |
| "Compare these measures with the requirements of the relevant federal law.", | |
| "Identify any gaps or non-compliance issues in LinkedIn's data protection practices.", | |
| "Argue that the clause fails to meet the federal standards for data protection, thereby putting user information at risk." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "state_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "state": "California", | |
| "notes": "The LinkedIn Privacy Policy must comply with the CCPA by providing clear information about data collection practices and ensuring that users have the rights to access, delete, and opt-out of the sale of their personal information. Any failure to meet these requirements could be argued as a violation of the CCPA.", | |
| "issue": "The clause may infringe on individual rights by not providing adequate protection for personal information as required by state privacy laws.", | |
| "law": "California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.", | |
| "relevance": "California Civil Code Section 1798.100, part of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), grants California residents the right to know what personal information is being collected about them, to whom it is being sold, and the ability to access, delete, and opt-out of the sale of their personal information.", | |
| "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=3.&part=4.&lawCode=CIV&title=1.81.5", | |
| "state_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific personal information being collected and how it is being used.", | |
| "Compare the practices outlined in the LinkedIn Privacy Policy with the requirements of the relevant state law.", | |
| "Highlight any discrepancies or potential violations of the state law.", | |
| "Argue that the clause does not provide sufficient protection for personal information as required by the state law." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "legal_rights_potentially_violated": [ | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to be informed about data collection and usage", | |
| "reasoning": "The clause states that personal information handling is governed by the LinkedIn Privacy Policy. If this policy does not clearly inform users about what specific personal information is being collected and how it is being used, it violates the right to be informed. This is a fundamental principle under both the Privacy Act of 1974 and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to access personal information", | |
| "reasoning": "Users have the right to access the personal information that is collected about them. If LinkedIn's Privacy Policy does not provide a clear and straightforward way for users to access their personal information, it infringes upon this right as outlined in the Privacy Act of 1974 and the CCPA." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to delete personal information", | |
| "reasoning": "The CCPA grants users the right to request the deletion of their personal information. If LinkedIn's Privacy Policy does not include provisions for users to delete their personal information, this right is being violated." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to opt-out of the sale of personal information", | |
| "reasoning": "The CCPA provides users with the right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information. If LinkedIn's Privacy Policy does not offer a clear mechanism for users to exercise this right, it constitutes a violation of the CCPA." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to data protection and security", | |
| "reasoning": "Both the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 emphasize the importance of safeguarding personal information. If LinkedIn's Privacy Policy does not implement robust data protection measures to prevent unauthorized access, misuse, or exposure of personal information, it violates this right." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to transparency in data practices", | |
| "reasoning": "Users have the right to transparent information about how their data is being handled. If LinkedIn's Privacy Policy lacks transparency or fails to clearly outline data practices, it infringes upon this right as emphasized by both federal and state laws." | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| { | |
| "section_header": "9. Open Source", | |
| "analysis": [ | |
| { | |
| "clause": "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.", | |
| "reasoning": { | |
| "federal_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "notes": "The Copyright Act governs the rights of copyright holders, including those of open source software. Ensuring compliance with open source licenses is crucial to respecting these rights.", | |
| "issue": "The clause could potentially infringe user rights if it fails to provide clear and accessible information about the open source licenses, or if it imposes additional restrictions that are not part of the original open source licenses.", | |
| "law": "17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (Copyright Act)", | |
| "relevance": "The Copyright Act provides the legal framework for copyright protection in the United States. This is particularly relevant to ensuring that the distribution of open source software complies with the terms set by the original copyright holders. Key provisions include Section 106, which outlines the exclusive rights in copyrighted works; Section 107, which details the limitations on these exclusive rights under the doctrine of fair use; and Section 501, which addresses the infringement of copyright.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title17&edition=prelim", | |
| "federal_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific open source licenses involved and their terms.", | |
| "Demonstrate how the clause ensures compliance with these open source licenses.", | |
| "Argue that the clause provides transparency and access to the license terms, which is a right of the user.", | |
| "Show that the clause respects the intellectual property rights of the original authors of the open source software." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "state_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "state": "California", | |
| "notes": "California Civil Code Section 1633.1 is directly relevant as it provides the legal framework for contract formation and enforcement, which is crucial for ensuring that the open source software license terms are legally binding and clearly communicated to the user.", | |
| "issue": "The clause could potentially infringe user rights if the open source software licenses impose restrictions that are not clearly communicated or if the terms are violated by the distributor.", | |
| "law": "Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.1 (California Civil Code Section 1633.1)", | |
| "relevance": "California Civil Code Section 1633.1 outlines the general principles of contract formation and enforcement. This law is relevant because it governs the enforceability of contract terms, including those related to open source software licenses. The clause must comply with the principles of contract formation and enforcement as outlined in this section, ensuring that the license terms are clear and enforceable.", | |
| "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1633.1&lawCode=CIV", | |
| "state_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific open source software included in the distributed software.", | |
| "Locate and review the applicable license terms for each piece of open source software.", | |
| "Determine if the license terms have been violated or if they impose any restrictions that infringe on the user's rights.", | |
| "Present evidence of any violations or restrictions to the judge, emphasizing how they impact the user's ability to use the software." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "legal_rights_potentially_violated": [ | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Clear and Accessible Information", | |
| "reasoning": "The clause must provide clear and accessible information about the open source licenses. If the information is not easily accessible or understandable, users may not be fully aware of their rights and obligations under these licenses. This could lead to unintentional violations of the license terms and potential legal consequences for the users." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Use Software Without Additional Restrictions", | |
| "reasoning": "Open source licenses typically allow users to use, modify, and distribute the software without additional restrictions. If the clause imposes any additional restrictions that are not part of the original open source licenses, it could infringe on the users' rights to freely use the software as intended by the original authors." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Intellectual Property Respect", | |
| "reasoning": "The clause must respect the intellectual property rights of the original authors of the open source software. This includes ensuring that the software is distributed in compliance with the original license terms and that proper attribution is given to the original authors. Failure to do so could result in a violation of the authors' intellectual property rights." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Contractual Clarity and Enforceability", | |
| "reasoning": "Under California Civil Code Section 1633.1, the terms of the open source licenses must be clearly communicated and enforceable. If the clause fails to meet these requirements, it could lead to disputes over the enforceability of the license terms and potentially infringe on the users' contractual rights." | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| { | |
| "section_header": "11. Limitation of Liability", | |
| "analysis": [ | |
| { | |
| "clause": "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.", | |
| "reasoning": { | |
| "federal_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "notes": "The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is relevant as it governs warranties on consumer products and can be used to argue against overly restrictive liability clauses in consumer contracts. It emphasizes fairness and good faith in warranty and service contracts.", | |
| "issue": "The clause can infringe user rights by excessively limiting LinkedIn's liability, even in cases where LinkedIn was aware of potential damages. This can leave users without adequate recourse for significant losses.", | |
| "law": "Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312", | |
| "relevance": "The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, specifically sections 15 U.S.C. § 2302 and 15 U.S.C. § 2304, can be invoked to argue that LinkedIn's limitation of liability clause is excessively restrictive and not in good faith. This is particularly relevant if the clause leaves users without sufficient recourse for significant and foreseeable damages.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title15/chapter50&edition=prelim", | |
| "federal_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "1. Identify the specific damages suffered and demonstrate how they fall under the categories listed in the clause (e.g., loss of profits, data).", | |
| "2. Argue that the limitation of liability clause is unconscionable or unfair under the circumstances, especially if the damages were foreseeable and LinkedIn was advised of the possibility.", | |
| "3. Highlight any jurisdictional exceptions that may apply, showing that the limitations and exclusions are not enforceable in the relevant jurisdiction.", | |
| "4. Reference federal laws that protect consumers from unfair contract terms, such as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which can be used to argue that the clause is overly restrictive and not in good faith." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "state_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "state": "California", | |
| "notes": "California law generally disfavors clauses that attempt to limit liability for intentional or negligent acts. This clause could be challenged as being against public policy if it is found to unfairly limit the user's ability to seek redress for legitimate damages.", | |
| "issue": "The clause can infringe rights by limiting the ability to recover damages that are a direct result of LinkedIn's actions, especially if those damages are significant and the user had no reasonable alternative but to accept the terms.", | |
| "law": "Cal. Civ. Code § 1668", | |
| "relevance": "The law provision states that any contract aiming to exempt a party from responsibility for their own fraud, willful injury to another's person or property, or any violation of the law, whether intentional or negligent, is against public policy. The clause in question tries to limit LinkedIn's liability for various types of damages. This could be interpreted as an attempt by LinkedIn to exempt itself from responsibility for its own actions, which may potentially violate the stated legal provision.", | |
| "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1668.&lawCode=CIV", | |
| "state_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific damages suffered and demonstrate how they fall under the categories listed in the clause.", | |
| "Show that the clause's limitations on liability are unconscionable or unfair under state law.", | |
| "Argue that the clause fails to provide a reasonable remedy, thus violating the state's consumer protection laws.", | |
| "Present evidence that the clause was not clearly communicated or was hidden in fine print, making it unenforceable." | |
| ] | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "state": "New York", | |
| "notes": "New York law generally disfavors clauses that attempt to limit liability for negligence. This clause could be challenged as being against public policy if it is found to unfairly limit the user's ability to seek redress for legitimate damages.", | |
| "issue": "The clause can infringe rights by preventing users from recovering damages that are a direct result of LinkedIn's negligence or misconduct, especially if the user had no meaningful choice but to accept the terms.", | |
| "law": "N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-323", | |
| "relevance": "The law provision states that any agreement or clause in a contract that tries to exempt a lessor (landlord) from being liable for damages caused by their own negligence, or the negligence of their agents, servants, or employees, in the operation or maintenance of the rented property, is considered void and unenforceable as it goes against public policy. The relationship to the clause in question is that it attempts to limit LinkedIn's liability for various types of damages. This could be interpreted as an attempt to exempt LinkedIn from responsibility for its own negligence, which might violate the aforementioned legal provision.", | |
| "url": "https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/GOB/5-323", | |
| "state_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Demonstrate that the damages suffered are significant and directly attributable to LinkedIn's actions.", | |
| "Argue that the clause is overly broad and effectively nullifies the user's ability to seek any meaningful remedy.", | |
| "Show that the clause is not prominently displayed or adequately explained, making it unenforceable under state law.", | |
| "Present evidence that the clause is unconscionable and violates the state's consumer protection statutes." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "legal_rights_potentially_violated": [ | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Fair Compensation", | |
| "description": "The clause limits LinkedIn's liability for various types of damages, including loss of profits, goodwill, use, data, or other intangible losses. This can prevent users from receiving fair compensation for significant and foreseeable damages directly attributable to LinkedIn's actions or negligence." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Seek Redress", | |
| "description": "By capping LinkedIn's aggregate liability to the amount of licensing fees paid, the clause restricts users' ability to seek adequate redress for substantial losses. This is particularly problematic if the damages suffered far exceed the licensing fees paid." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Protection from Unconscionable Terms", | |
| "description": "The clause may be considered unconscionable or unfair, especially if it was not clearly communicated or was hidden in fine print. Users have a right to be protected from contract terms that are excessively restrictive and not in good faith." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Protection from Negligence", | |
| "description": "State laws, such as those in California and New York, generally disfavor clauses that attempt to limit liability for negligence. The clause could infringe on users' rights by preventing them from recovering damages that are a direct result of LinkedIn's negligence or misconduct." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Consumer Protection", | |
| "description": "Federal laws like the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act emphasize fairness and good faith in warranty and service contracts. The clause's attempt to excessively limit LinkedIn's liability can be seen as a violation of these principles, thereby infringing on users' consumer protection rights." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Jurisdictional Fairness", | |
| "description": "The clause acknowledges that some jurisdictions do not allow the limitations of damages and/or exclusions of liability for incidental or consequential damages. Users in these jurisdictions have the right to challenge the enforceability of such limitations, ensuring that their local consumer protection laws are upheld." | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| { | |
| "section_header": "2. License", | |
| "analysis": [ | |
| { | |
| "clause": "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.", | |
| "reasoning": { | |
| "federal_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "notes": "The DMCA includes provisions that protect against overly restrictive digital rights management (DRM) practices that can limit fair use. This can be used to argue that the license clause's restrictions on installation and back-up are unreasonable.", | |
| "issue": "The clause restricts the user's ability to install and back-up the software on multiple devices, which may be considered overly restrictive and not in line with fair use principles.", | |
| "law": "Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201", | |
| "relevance": "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), cited as 17 U.S.C. § 1201, includes provisions that are relevant to the license clause's restrictions on software installation and back-up. Specifically, section 1201(a)(1)(A) of the DMCA prohibits the circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. However, section 1201(a)(1)(C) allows for exemptions to this prohibition for certain classes of works. The license clause's restrictions on installation and back-up may be seen as a form of Digital Rights Management (DRM) that limits the user's ability to make fair use of the software. It can be argued that the user's need to install and back-up the software on multiple devices falls under fair use exemptions.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title17/chapter12&edition=prelim", | |
| "federal_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific rights granted under the license clause.", | |
| "Demonstrate how the clause restricts the user's ability to use the software beyond personal use and on multiple devices.", | |
| "Argue that such restrictions may be overly burdensome and not reasonably necessary to protect the licensor's interests.", | |
| "Cite relevant federal laws that protect consumer rights and fair use, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.", | |
| "Present case law or precedents where similar restrictions were deemed unreasonable or unenforceable." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "state_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "state": "California", | |
| "notes": "The CCPA provides broad protections for consumers' personal data, which may conflict with the restrictive nature of the license clause. Arguing that the clause imposes unreasonable limitations in light of these protections could be a strong strategy in front of a judge.", | |
| "issue": "The clause may infringe upon the user's rights by imposing overly restrictive conditions on the use, installation, and back-up of the Software, which may not align with the broader rights granted under state law.", | |
| "law": "California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.", | |
| "relevance": "The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), codified under Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq., provides several key rights to consumers regarding their personal data. Section 1798.100 grants consumers the right to know what personal data is being collected about them. Section 1798.105 allows consumers to request the deletion of their personal data. Section 1798.120 gives consumers the right to opt-out of the sale of their personal data. However, certain clause restrictions, such as a non-transferable license, may potentially conflict with these rights by limiting the user's ability to control their personal data as granted under the CCPA. Additionally, a restriction like a one-device limit may be seen as overly restrictive compared to the broader rights provided under the CCPA.", | |
| "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=3.&part=4.&lawCode=CIV&title=1.81.5", | |
| "state_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific rights granted under the license clause.", | |
| "Compare these rights with the protections offered under the relevant state law.", | |
| "Highlight any discrepancies or limitations imposed by the clause that may infringe upon the user's rights.", | |
| "Argue that the clause's restrictions are unreasonable or overly burdensome in light of the state law's protections." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "legal_rights_potentially_violated": [ | |
| { | |
| "right": "Fair Use", | |
| "description": "The clause restricts the user's ability to install and back-up the software on multiple devices, which may be considered overly restrictive and not in line with fair use principles. Under the DMCA, fair use exemptions allow users to make copies of software for personal use, including back-ups and installations on multiple devices." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Consumer Rights", | |
| "description": "The clause's restrictions may be seen as overly burdensome and not reasonably necessary to protect the licensor's interests. Federal laws like the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act protect consumers from unfair warranty terms and conditions, which can be extended to argue against overly restrictive software licenses." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Digital Rights Management (DRM) Exemptions", | |
| "description": "The DMCA includes provisions that protect against overly restrictive DRM practices that can limit fair use. The license clause's restrictions on installation and back-up may be seen as a form of DRM that limits the user's ability to make fair use of the software." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Data Privacy and Control", | |
| "description": "Under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), consumers have broad protections for their personal data. The clause's non-transferable license and one-device limit may potentially conflict with these rights by limiting the user's ability to control their personal data as granted under the CCPA." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Know and Delete Personal Data", | |
| "description": "The CCPA grants consumers the right to know what personal data is being collected about them and to request the deletion of their personal data. The restrictive nature of the license clause may infringe upon these rights by imposing conditions that limit the user's ability to manage their personal data." | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| { | |
| "section_header": "10. Indemnification", | |
| "analysis": [ | |
| { | |
| "clause": "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.", | |
| "reasoning": { | |
| "federal_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "notes": "The Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. An indemnification clause that imposes excessive liability on the user could be considered an unfair practice.", | |
| "issue": "The clause can infringe user rights by imposing an excessive and potentially unlimited liability on the user, which may be deemed unfair and unconscionable under federal consumer protection laws.", | |
| "law": "15 U.S.C. § 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission", | |
| "relevance": "The law, 15 U.S.C. § 45, prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. This means that any business conduct that is misleading or unjust to consumers is not allowed. In relation to an indemnification clause, if such a clause imposes excessive and unreasonable liability on the user, it could be considered an unfair practice under this law and may be subject to legal challenge.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section45&num=0&edition=prelim", | |
| "federal_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "1. Identify the specific rights potentially infringed by the indemnification clause.", | |
| "2. Argue that the clause is overly broad and may unfairly burden the user with liability.", | |
| "3. Cite relevant federal laws that protect consumers from unfair contract terms.", | |
| "4. Demonstrate how the clause could lead to unjust outcomes, such as holding the user liable for damages beyond their control.", | |
| "5. Emphasize the importance of fairness and reasonableness in contract terms." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "state_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "state": "California", | |
| "notes": "California law provides a strong basis for challenging overly broad and unfair indemnification clauses. By demonstrating that the clause is unconscionable, a user can argue for its modification or removal to avoid unjust outcomes.", | |
| "issue": "The clause can infringe user rights by imposing excessive liability on the user for a wide range of damages, including those that are indirect or incidental, which may not be reasonably foreseeable. It also covers a broad array of parties and contexts, potentially making the user responsible for situations beyond their control.", | |
| "law": "Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5", | |
| "relevance": "According to Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5, if a court determines that a contract or any part of it was unconscionable at the time it was made, the court has several options. It can refuse to enforce the entire contract, enforce the rest of the contract without the unconscionable part, or limit the application of the unconscionable part to avoid an unfair outcome. This law is relevant to the indemnification clause in question, as it could be considered unconscionable due to its broad scope and the excessive burden it places on the user.", | |
| "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1670.5&lawCode=CIV", | |
| "state_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific terms of the indemnification clause that are overly broad or unfair.", | |
| "Demonstrate how the clause imposes an unreasonable burden on the user, potentially including financial hardship or legal liability.", | |
| "Cite relevant state laws that protect consumers from unfair contract terms.", | |
| "Argue that the clause is unconscionable under state law, meaning it is so one-sided that it is oppressive or unfairly surprising to the user.", | |
| "Provide examples of similar cases where courts have struck down or modified such clauses." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "legal_rights_potentially_violated": [ | |
| { | |
| "right": "Protection from Unfair Contract Terms", | |
| "reasoning": "The indemnification clause imposes an excessive and potentially unlimited liability on the user, which can be deemed unfair and unconscionable. This violates the user's right to fair and reasonable contract terms as protected under federal and state consumer protection laws." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Protection from Unconscionable Contracts", | |
| "reasoning": "Under California law (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5), a contract or clause that is overly one-sided and oppressive can be considered unconscionable. The indemnification clause's broad scope and excessive burden on the user could be seen as unconscionable, infringing on the user's right to equitable contract terms." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Protection from Excessive Liability", | |
| "reasoning": "The clause holds the user liable for a wide range of damages, including indirect, incidental, and consequential damages, which may not be reasonably foreseeable or within the user's control. This imposes an unreasonable financial and legal burden on the user, violating their right to protection from excessive liability." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Protection from Unfair Business Practices", | |
| "reasoning": "The Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. An indemnification clause that imposes excessive liability on the user could be considered an unfair practice, infringing on the user's right to protection from unfair business practices." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Fairness and Reasonableness in Contracts", | |
| "reasoning": "The indemnification clause's broad and all-encompassing nature may lead to unjust outcomes, such as holding the user liable for damages beyond their control. This violates the user's right to fairness and reasonableness in contract terms, as emphasized by both federal and state laws." | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| { | |
| "section_header": "6. No Warranty", | |
| "analysis": [ | |
| { | |
| "clause": "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.", | |
| "reasoning": { | |
| "federal_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "notes": "The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is directly relevant as it governs the use of warranties in consumer products, including software. It limits the ability to disclaim implied warranties and requires certain disclosures.", | |
| "issue": "The clause can infringe rights by disclaiming all warranties, including those implied by law, which may leave the user without any recourse if the software is defective or fails to perform as expected.", | |
| "law": "Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312", | |
| "relevance": "The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act applies to consumer products and stipulates that implied warranties cannot be disclaimed if a written warranty is provided. It also requires that all disclosures must be clear and conspicuous. Additionally, some states may have extra protections beyond the federal requirements.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title15/chapter50&edition=prelim", | |
| "federal_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "1. Identify the specific rights that are being waived or disclaimed in the clause.", | |
| "2. Reference the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which governs warranties on consumer products.", | |
| "3. Argue that the disclaimer of implied warranties may be limited or prohibited under this Act.", | |
| "4. Highlight any jurisdictional exceptions mentioned in the clause that may apply.", | |
| "5. Present any evidence that the software did not meet basic standards of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "state_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "state": "California", | |
| "notes": "California law requires that disclaimers of implied warranties be conspicuous and specific. If the disclaimer in the clause does not meet these requirements, it may be deemed unenforceable, thereby protecting the user's rights.", | |
| "issue": "The clause can infringe the rights of the user by disclaiming all implied warranties, which may leave the user without any recourse if the software fails to perform as expected or causes harm.", | |
| "law": "Cal. Com. Code § 2316", | |
| "relevance": "The disclaimer of implied warranties must be conspicuous and specifically mention merchantability. If it pertains to fitness, it must also be in writing and conspicuous. Any disclaimer that does not meet these criteria may not be enforceable. The clause disclaims all implied warranties, but it must adhere to the requirements of being conspicuous and specific as outlined in California Commercial Code Section 2316. If the disclaimer is not sufficiently conspicuous or specific, it may not hold up under California law.", | |
| "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=COM§ionNum=2316", | |
| "state_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific implied warranties that are being disclaimed in the clause.", | |
| "Refer to the relevant state law that governs implied warranties and their disclaimers.", | |
| "Argue that the disclaimer is not conspicuous or specific enough as required by the state law.", | |
| "Present evidence that the software did not meet the basic standards of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.", | |
| "Highlight any jurisdictional exceptions that may apply, indicating that the waiver or exclusion of implied warranties is not enforceable in this jurisdiction." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "legal_rights_potentially_violated": [ | |
| { | |
| "right": "Implied Warranty of Merchantability", | |
| "description": "This right ensures that the software is of average acceptable quality and generally fit for the purpose for which it is sold. The clause disclaims this warranty, potentially leaving users without recourse if the software is defective or fails to perform as expected.", | |
| "relevant_law": "Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312; Cal. Com. Code § 2316", | |
| "reasoning": "The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and California Commercial Code require that disclaimers of implied warranties be clear, conspicuous, and specific. The clause's broad disclaimer may not meet these requirements, making it potentially unenforceable." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose", | |
| "description": "This right ensures that the software is suitable for a specific purpose that the user has made known to the seller. The clause disclaims this warranty, potentially leaving users without recourse if the software fails to meet their specific needs.", | |
| "relevant_law": "Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312; Cal. Com. Code § 2316", | |
| "reasoning": "The disclaimer must be in writing and conspicuous to be enforceable. The clause's broad disclaimer may not meet these criteria, making it potentially unenforceable under both federal and state laws." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Implied Warranty of Non-Infringement", | |
| "description": "This right ensures that the software does not infringe on the intellectual property rights of others. The clause disclaims this warranty, potentially leaving users vulnerable to legal issues if the software infringes on third-party rights.", | |
| "relevant_law": "Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312", | |
| "reasoning": "The broad disclaimer of all warranties, including non-infringement, may not be enforceable under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which requires clear and conspicuous disclosures." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Recourse for Defective Products", | |
| "description": "Users have the right to seek recourse if the software is defective or fails to perform as expected. The clause's broad disclaimer of all warranties may leave users without any legal recourse.", | |
| "relevant_law": "Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312; Cal. Com. Code § 2316", | |
| "reasoning": "The disclaimer of all warranties, including implied ones, may not be enforceable if it does not meet the requirements of being clear, conspicuous, and specific. This could leave users without any legal recourse for defective products." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Clear and Conspicuous Disclosures", | |
| "description": "Users have the right to clear and conspicuous disclosures regarding any disclaimers of warranties. The clause's broad and general disclaimer may not meet this requirement.", | |
| "relevant_law": "Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312; Cal. Com. Code § 2316", | |
| "reasoning": "The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and California Commercial Code require that disclaimers be clear and conspicuous. The clause's broad disclaimer may not meet these criteria, making it potentially unenforceable." | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| { | |
| "section_header": "13. General", | |
| "analysis": [ | |
| { | |
| "clause": "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.", | |
| "reasoning": { | |
| "federal_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "notes": "28 U.S.C. § 1404 allows for the transfer of a case to a different district for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. This can be used to argue that the designated jurisdiction clause should not be enforced if it imposes undue hardship on the user.", | |
| "issue": "The clause may limit the ability of users to seek legal recourse in their local jurisdiction, potentially imposing undue hardship and limiting access to justice.", | |
| "law": "28 U.S.C. § 1404 - Change of Venue", | |
| "relevance": "According to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, this law can be used to argue that the jurisdiction clause in the End User License Agreement (EULA) should be modified or not enforced if it causes significant inconvenience to the user. This ensures the user's right to a fair trial is protected.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title28/part4/chapter87&edition=prelim", | |
| "federal_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "1. Identify the specific clause in the EULA that is potentially infringing on the rights.", | |
| "2. Reference the relevant federal law that protects those rights.", | |
| "3. Explain how the clause violates the specific provisions of the federal law.", | |
| "4. Provide precedents or case law where similar clauses were deemed unlawful.", | |
| "5. Argue for the necessity of modifying or nullifying the clause to protect the rights." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "state_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "state": "California", | |
| "notes": "California law provides a strong basis for challenging contract clauses that are deemed unconscionable. By demonstrating that the jurisdiction and governing law provisions in the EULA are overly burdensome or unfair to the user, one can argue for their modification or removal under Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5.", | |
| "issue": "The clause may infringe user rights by imposing a jurisdiction that is inconvenient or overly burdensome for the user, making it difficult for them to seek legal recourse.", | |
| "law": "Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5 (West 2023)", | |
| "relevance": "California Civil Code Section 1670.5 allows a court to refuse to enforce a contract or any clause of a contract that it finds to be unconscionable at the time it was made. This law is directly relevant to the End User License Agreement (EULA) clause, as it provides a legal basis for challenging the jurisdiction and governing law provisions if they are found to be unfair to the user.", | |
| "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1670.5&lawCode=CIV", | |
| "state_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific clause in the EULA that is being contested.", | |
| "Explain how the clause may be considered unconscionable or unfair under California law.", | |
| "Provide evidence or examples of how the clause disproportionately benefits LinkedIn at the expense of the user.", | |
| "Cite relevant California statutes or case law that support the argument that the clause is unenforceable.", | |
| "Request the court to either modify the clause to make it fairer or to strike it out entirely." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "legal_rights_potentially_violated": [ | |
| { | |
| "right": "Access to Justice", | |
| "description": "The clause may limit the ability of users to seek legal recourse in their local jurisdiction, potentially imposing undue hardship and limiting access to justice. Users may find it financially and logistically challenging to litigate disputes in Dublin, Ireland, or Santa Clara County, California, USA, which could deter them from pursuing legitimate claims." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Fair Trial", | |
| "description": "According to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, users have the right to a fair trial, which includes the convenience of parties and witnesses. The designated jurisdiction clause may violate this right by forcing users to litigate in a distant and potentially inconvenient forum, thereby hindering their ability to present their case effectively." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Protection from Unconscionable Contracts", | |
| "description": "Under California Civil Code Section 1670.5, users are protected from contract clauses that are deemed unconscionable. The jurisdiction and governing law provisions in the EULA could be considered overly burdensome or unfair, disproportionately benefiting LinkedIn at the expense of the user. This could render the clause unenforceable under California law." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Equal Bargaining Power", | |
| "description": "The clause may infringe on the user's right to equal bargaining power. By imposing a jurisdiction that is convenient for LinkedIn but potentially burdensome for the user, the clause creates an imbalance in the contractual relationship, favoring LinkedIn." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Reasonable Contract Terms", | |
| "description": "Users have the right to reasonable contract terms. The requirement to litigate in a specific, potentially distant jurisdiction may be seen as an unreasonable term, especially if it imposes significant inconvenience or cost on the user." | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| { | |
| "section_header": "4. Restrictions", | |
| "analysis": [ | |
| { | |
| "clause": "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.", | |
| "reasoning": { | |
| "federal_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "notes": "The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) governs the interception and disclosure of electronic communications. The clause's restrictions on privacy must align with the protections provided under the ECPA.", | |
| "legal_rights": [ | |
| "Identify the specific federal laws that govern privacy and intellectual property rights.", | |
| "Demonstrate how the clause imposes restrictions that may conflict with these federal laws.", | |
| "Argue that the clause is overly broad and may infringe upon the user's rights under these federal laws.", | |
| "Provide examples of how the clause could be interpreted in a way that limits the user's lawful use of the software.", | |
| "Request the judge to consider the federal laws as the governing authority over the clause's restrictions." | |
| ], | |
| "issue": "The clause could potentially infringe upon the user's rights by imposing restrictions that are broader than those required by federal laws, thereby limiting the user's lawful use of the software.", | |
| "law": "Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523", | |
| "relevance": "The clause must ensure that any restrictions on the use of the software do not violate the privacy protections established under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, specifically sections 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter119&edition=prelim" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "notes": "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) addresses the protection of copyrighted works in the digital environment. The clause's restrictions on intellectual property rights must align with the protections provided under the DMCA.", | |
| "legal_rights": [ | |
| "Identify the specific federal laws that govern intellectual property rights.", | |
| "Demonstrate how the clause imposes restrictions that may conflict with these federal laws.", | |
| "Argue that the clause is overly broad and may infringe upon the user's rights under these federal laws.", | |
| "Provide examples of how the clause could be interpreted in a way that limits the user's lawful use of the software.", | |
| "Request the judge to consider the federal laws as the governing authority over the clause's restrictions." | |
| ], | |
| "issue": "The clause could potentially infringe upon the user's rights by imposing restrictions that are broader than those required by federal laws, thereby limiting the user's lawful use of the software.", | |
| "law": "Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201", | |
| "relevance": "The clause must ensure that any restrictions on the use of the software do not violate the intellectual property protections established under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, specifically 17 U.S.C. § 1201.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title17/chapter12&edition=prelim" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "state_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "state": "California", | |
| "notes": "The CCPA is directly relevant as it provides explicit protections for user privacy, which the clause must comply with. Arguing that the clause is overly broad and may infringe on these protections can help ensure that user rights are upheld.", | |
| "legal_rights": [ | |
| "Identify the specific state law that governs software usage and privacy.", | |
| "Demonstrate how the clause imposes restrictions that may conflict with the state law.", | |
| "Argue that the clause is overly broad and may infringe on the user's rights under the state law.", | |
| "Provide examples of how the clause could be interpreted to limit lawful activities protected by the state law.", | |
| "Request the judge to consider the state law's protections and how the clause may need to be modified to comply with those protections." | |
| ], | |
| "issue": "The clause could potentially infringe on the user's rights by imposing overly broad restrictions that may conflict with state laws protecting privacy and intellectual property rights.", | |
| "law": "California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.", | |
| "relevance": "The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) provides California residents with specific rights regarding their personal information. These rights include the right to know what personal information is being collected, the right to delete personal information, and the right to opt-out of the sale of personal information. The clause in question requires compliance with all applicable laws, including privacy laws. Therefore, the CCPA's protections for user privacy could be used to argue that the clause should not impose restrictions that infringe on these rights.", | |
| "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=3.&part=4.&lawCode=CIV&title=1.81.5" | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "clause": "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.", | |
| "reasoning": { | |
| "federal_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "notes": "17 U.S.C. § 107 provides for the fair use of copyrighted material, which can include actions such as reverse engineering for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.", | |
| "issue": "The clause may infringe on user rights by overly restricting actions such as reverse engineering, which can be protected under certain circumstances by federal law.", | |
| "law": "17 U.S.C. § 107 (2021) - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use", | |
| "relevance": "17 U.S.C. § 107 is a law that permits the fair use of copyrighted material. This can sometimes include reverse engineering, provided certain conditions are met. However, there may be a conflict between this right and clauses that prohibit reverse engineering.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title17-section107&num=0&edition=prelim", | |
| "federal_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific prohibitions in the clause that may infringe on user rights.", | |
| "Argue that certain prohibitions, such as restrictions on reverse engineering, may conflict with user rights under specific federal laws.", | |
| "Present relevant federal laws that protect user rights, such as the right to fair use or the right to repair.", | |
| "Demonstrate how these laws explicitly allow certain actions that the clause prohibits.", | |
| "Highlight any legal precedents or case law that support the argument." | |
| ] | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "notes": "17 U.S.C. § 106 grants the copyright owner exclusive rights, including the right to create derivative works. However, this right is subject to limitations and exceptions, such as fair use.", | |
| "issue": "The clause may infringe on user rights by overly restricting the creation of derivative works, which can be protected under certain circumstances by federal law.", | |
| "law": "17 U.S.C. § 106 (2021) - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works", | |
| "relevance": "17 U.S.C. § 106 grants the copyright owner exclusive rights, including the right to create derivative works. However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to certain limitations and exceptions. This means that while the copyright owner has significant control over their work, there are specific circumstances under which others may use the work without permission, potentially leading to conflicts with the prohibition on creating derivative works.", | |
| "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title17-section106&num=0&edition=prelim", | |
| "federal_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific prohibitions in the clause that may infringe on user rights.", | |
| "Argue that certain prohibitions, such as restrictions on creating derivative works, may conflict with user rights under specific federal laws.", | |
| "Present relevant federal laws that protect user rights, such as the right to create derivative works under certain conditions.", | |
| "Demonstrate how these laws explicitly allow certain actions that the clause prohibits.", | |
| "Highlight any legal precedents or case law that support the argument." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "state_laws": [ | |
| { | |
| "state": "California", | |
| "notes": "California law provides strong consumer protections that can override overly restrictive EULA clauses. The specific provisions allowing for reverse engineering for interoperability and prohibiting unfair practices can be used to argue that the EULA's prohibitions are unenforceable.", | |
| "issue": "The clause can infringe on the rights of the user by overly restricting their ability to use, modify, or understand the software, which may be protected under state laws that allow for fair use, reverse engineering for interoperability, or other consumer rights.", | |
| "law": "Cal. Civ. Code § 1799.3", | |
| "relevance": "The provisions prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the sale or lease of consumer goods or services, and allow consumers to reverse engineer software for the purpose of achieving interoperability with other software. The relationship to the clause indicates that the prohibition on reverse engineering in the End User License Agreement (EULA) may be deemed unenforceable under California law, which allows for reverse engineering for interoperability. Additionally, the broad restrictions on use and modification of the software may be considered unfair or deceptive practices under California law.", | |
| "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1799.3&lawCode=CIV", | |
| "state_rights_advocacy": [ | |
| "Identify the specific prohibition in the clause that is being challenged.", | |
| "Refer to the relevant state law that provides exceptions or protections against such prohibitions.", | |
| "Explain how the state law overrides or limits the clause in the EULA.", | |
| "Provide case law or precedents where similar clauses were deemed unenforceable or limited by the state law.", | |
| "Argue that the clause in question infringes on the rights provided by the state law and should be deemed unenforceable or limited in scope." | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "legal_rights_potentially_violated": [ | |
| { | |
| "right": "Privacy Rights", | |
| "details": "The clause requires compliance with all applicable laws, including privacy laws. However, it may impose restrictions that are broader than those required by federal laws such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and state laws like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). This could potentially infringe upon the user's privacy rights by limiting their lawful use of the software in ways that are not mandated by these laws." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Intellectual Property Rights", | |
| "details": "The clause restricts the creation of derivative works, reverse engineering, and other modifications to the software. These restrictions may conflict with federal laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and 17 U.S.C. § 107, which provide for fair use and certain exceptions to copyright protections. Additionally, state laws like California's Civil Code § 1799.3 allow for reverse engineering for interoperability, which the clause may unlawfully restrict." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Fair Use", | |
| "details": "The clause's prohibition on reverse engineering and creating derivative works may infringe upon the user's rights under 17 U.S.C. § 107, which allows for fair use of copyrighted material. This includes actions such as reverse engineering for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Right to Repair", | |
| "details": "The clause's restrictions on reverse engineering and modifications may conflict with the user's right to repair, which is increasingly recognized under various state laws and consumer protection regulations. For example, California's Civil Code § 1799.3 allows for reverse engineering for the purpose of achieving interoperability with other software." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "right": "Consumer Protection", | |
| "details": "The clause may be considered overly broad and potentially unfair or deceptive under consumer protection laws. For instance, California's Civil Code § 1799.3 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the sale or lease of consumer goods or services. The broad restrictions on use and modification of the software could be seen as unfair or deceptive practices." | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| marcfawzi:outermind |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment