Two points. First, contracts are rarely all or nothing as you describe. Companies routinely include severability clauses in contracts specifically to avoid the "enforceable or not as a single unit" situation. No company wants the entire contract voided because one sentence was found to be invalid. So it's not only reasonable but routine for contracts to be partially valid/enforceable if they're not fully enforceable/valid.

Second, EULAs aren't conventional contracts. A standard contract involves a negotiation between the parties over the terms. EULAs allow for no negotiation, the user has to take them as-is or leave them. They're what's called a contract of adhesion. The law applies different standards to a contract of adhesion to compensate for the fact that one party has no say over the terms. The FTC is merely arguing that certain terms of the EULA in question fall into the class of unreasonable and/or unconscionable terms that aren't valid in a contract of adhesion.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/365/32592#32592