Should we allow people to sell their souls to the devil? Freedom of contract confronts the fact people don’t read the contracts they enter.

I don’t think Robert Johnson made any deal with Satan to obtain his remarkable talents; he listened to and made his own the sounds of his contemporaries. Apparently, however, the British game retailer GameStation is counting on its customers believing talent is more a matter of divine or satanic inspiration than the creative reworking of existing culture. GameStation’s current end user license agreement requires online purchasers of its products to agree to the following: “ By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorised minions.”

As further reported, “While all shoppers during the test were given a simple tick box option to opt out, very few did this, which would have also rewarded them with a £5 voucher, according to news:lite. Due to the number of people who ticked the box, GameStation claimsbelieves as many as 88 percent of people do not read the terms and conditions of a Web site before they make a purchase.” The fact that so few people read the contracts they sign is no news to me. The troublesome part is that these contracts are generally enforced, although GameStop “noted that it would not be enforcing the ownership rights, and planned to e-mail customers nullifying any claim on their soul.” They are enforced because contract law is founded on the notion that we are all free and equal individuals left to our own devices to enter those transactions we wish. Moreover, many believe that any limitations on what individuals can be allowed to agree to (within certain well-accepted limits) are counter to economic wisdom. But when we face up to the fact so few people actually read these agreements, sooner or later we’re likely to have to face the fact we’ll have to limit what consumer retailers can require in these agreements.

Amazon, EULAs, and Orwell’s memory hole.

Can Amazon take back from y0ur Kindle a book you thought you’d purchased? Well, it did exactly that — Kindle owners who’d obtained ebooks of George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm discovered last week that Amazon had simply deleted those books from their Kindles. No one seems to have known Amazon could do that — the fact the Kindle connects electronically to the internet has until now always been considered a reason the Kindle is better than competing ebook readers.

But did Amazon have the contractual right to do what it did?

The first thing to note is that you don’t “buy” ebooks from Amazon. As the Kindle’s End User License Agreement (“EULA”) states, you merely purchase a “license” to use the ebooks. The license is the right to use the ebooks under the terms of the EULA.

But does the EULA allow Amazon to unilaterally take back a book? I’m not so sure. I think likely Amazon is in breach. Nowhere in the agreement do I see any provision that gives Amazon the right to do what it did. Moroever, the EULA states that the license is one to keep a “permanent” copy of the text you are obtaining and to view, use, and display that text an “unlimited number of times”:

Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times.

The fact Amazon refunded the price of the Orwell books would not excuse its breach. You can’t enter a contract and then unilaterally tell the other side to the deal you want to undo it.

So Amazon may indeed be in breach. But does it matter? First, it would be difficult to prove any damage over and above the “purchase” price, which Amazon has refunded. But there are two more important points. First, as I’ve written before about EULAs, anytime you enter one online you are probably agreeing that the agreement can be amended at any time without even any notice to you. Amazon may simply argue that its recall of the books was an amendment of the agreement.

Second, what are you going to do, sue? You can’t. The EULA requires any dispute arising under it to be arbitrated in Seatlle! Are you going to go to the trouble of hiring a lawyer in Seattle to start an arbitration proceeding so that you might be able to recover a few more bucks? Of course not.

Actions like these are why class actions exist — where a company engages in actions that cause small amounts of damage to many people, it’s not worth any individual’s time or money to pursue a remedy, and even if it were the remedy is so small that the company’s gains from the improper conduct are worth it. As Wikipedia explains:

[A] class action may overcome “the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997) (quoting Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 388, 344 (7th Cir. 1997)). “A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone’s (usually an attorney’s) labor.” Amchem Prods., Inc., 521 U.S. at 617 (quoting Mace, 109 F.3d at 344). In other words, a class action ensures that a defendant who engages in widespread harm – but does so minimally against each individual plaintiff – must compensate those individuals for their injuries. For example, thousands of shareholders of a public company may have losses too small to justify separate lawsuits, but a class action can be brought efficiently on behalf of all shareholders. Perhaps even more important than compensation is that class treatment of claims may be the only way to impose the costs of wrongdoing on the wrongdoer, thus deterring future wrongdoing.

But you can’t bring a class action in arbitration. That’s why all these EULAs require arbitration — so that there’s no opportunity for a class action that would impose on the company the real damages it would be liable for to all the people it has wronged by its conduct.

Pretty clever, eh? Just remember, when you push for “tort reform,” you’re really looking to benefit wrongdoers, not to right the defects of a “broken” litigation system.

ADDENDUM: Maybe there is hope after all – in Harris v. Blockbuster, a federal district court in Texas ruling under Texas state law refused to enforce an arbitration provision precisely because the contract provided a unilateral right to amend. I’ve got to research this point more, but it seems on its face to be consistent with Texas law. I see reason, though, to think it wouldn’t be under the law of many states. The court says the agreement to arbitrate is “illusory” because it can be amended without notice. I would think that in most states the un-amended contract would be enforceable and terms that were added by amendment MIGHT be deemed illusory.

Do you know you’ve agreed that Amazon can decide you’ve agreed to something other than what you agreed to?

I teach contract law. One of the most interesting issues in contract law is the extent to which it is based on conscious agreement. Theoretically, two free individuals are at liberty to agree to govern their relationship with respect to any given matter (the sale of a car, the division of assets in a divorce, the employment by one of another, the limitations on the use of materials posted by one on a web site governed by another) in any way they agree.

One problem with this theory is that so few of our contractual relationships are based on anything resembling conscious agreement. When is the last time you read a rental car agreement? The agreement governing use of your credit card? (Well, we might all be doing that more these days.) The terms of service governing your Facebook account?

The vast majority of us never read the terms of service governing our use of commercial web sites. Yet there is little question we are bound to them and that we entrust them with our creative work and our information we want to keep private. More surprisingly, perhaps, when we agree to these terms of service we almost always agree that the service provider can change the terms unilaterally. In other words, we are agreeing that our relationship with the web site will be whatever the web site decides that relationship will be.

As Plagiarism Today explains:

[I]t is standard practice for many sites to silently change their terms of service as the terms itself allow them to do. Users are often unaware of potentially worrisome changes until after a problem has arisen, when it is often too late to do anything about them.

But now the Electronic Frontier Foundation has created “‘TOSBack‘”: a ‘terms of service’” tracker for Facebook, Google, eBay, and other major websites”:

At www.TOSBack.org, you can see a real-time feed of changes and updates to more than three dozen polices from the Internet’s most popular online services. Clicking on an update brings you to a side-by-side before-and-after comparison, highlighting what has been removed from the policy and what has been added. . . .

“Some changes to terms of service are good for consumers, and some are bad,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Fred von Lohmann. “But Internet users are increasingly trusting websites with everything from their photos to their ‘friends lists’ to their calendar — and sometimes even their medical information. TOSBack will help consumers flag changes in the websites they use every day and trust with their personal information.”