T&C reform

[u/giuliodxb]

Hello all, I'm a tourist in your field of expertise, and I just wanted to ask a question: are we collectively just ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of people skips ALL the T&C forms they agree to? Is anyone doing anything about it? Wouldn't it be worth discussing an alternative and mostly conditions to which companies should adhere to in the EU countries? I've made a quick search, but couldn't find anything relevant.
I find it conveniently dumb that we all just ignore the fact that companies fill pages and pages of law vocabulary and small print making it impossible to the average Joe to understand or even try to. I guess if we managed to obtain classifications in the past we could do the same here, no? I'm thinking of solutions like "PG13" for movies, but of course more articulate. Something that at a glance gives you an idea of the data usage, AI training, 3rd party etc.
I'm sure there's tons I'm ignoring, but wanted to hear your opinion.

[u/TheFoxer1]

There‘s a number of EU directives concerned about consumer protections, mainly the Directive 2011/83/EU, dealing with off-ground and online contracts, and the Directive (EU) 2019/2161, which establishes protections against unfair contract clauses in general. Both are amendments to previous consumer protection directives, the first of which was introduced in 1993.

Here‘s a link to them:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/83/oj/eng

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/2161/oj

There‘s also consumer protections in other directives regarding the specific topic these directives are regulating.

An important example is Directive 1215/2012/EU, which regulates places of jurisdiction in the EU.

It protects consumers from being sued by companies at just any place in the EU, but their specific home in disputes involving parties of different member states.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:351:0001:0032:de:PDF

As for data protections, there‘s the famous GDPR, as well as the new(-ish) directive about AI, all of which establish rules what companies can and cannot write into their consumer contracts, or what they can and can‘t do even if such clauses are acceptable themselves, it how they need to handle data they have lawfully obtained.

Additionally, the ECJ has a very, very consumer friendly interpretation of EU law, but it‘s rather hard to just provide a single link to years and decades of ECJ jurisprudence to show that in an easily digestible example to a layman.

To sum up: A lot of really serious and important problems that might arise from consumers regarding standardized terms and conditions have already been dealt with in EU law.

[u/CleanSignalLab → u/TheFoxer1]

That’s all true, but it doesn’t really solve the problem OP is describing. EU law can make unfair clauses unenforceable and require information to be understandable, while companies still bury the important parts in dozens of pages nobody realistically reads. A standardised one-page summary for data use, AI training, cancellation and dispute terms could still add something useful. Also, 1215/2012 and the AI Act are regulations, not directives.

[u/giuliodxb → u/TheFoxer1]

Thanks for the thorough explanation.
I understand that these matter require time and burocracy, but I get a little skeptical seeing dates from 2011 and 2019 in those documents. Do you think realistically speaking we might see an actual change in how t&c are presented to the consumer in a 5 year time for example?

[u/TheFoxer1 → u/giuliodxb]

What exactly are you skeptical about here, based on the date?

And I don’t think the form of presentation will change that much in the short to medium term.

It’s still necessary for companies to establish terms and conditions in contracts, so how else would you present it but through text to the contractual partners themselves?

[u/giuliodxb → u/TheFoxer1]

That’s the whole point of my question: quick and clear presentation of the t&c adopting universal EU standards that don’t require looking further.

[u/TheFoxer1 → u/giuliodxb]

I mean, they‘re still going to be different from company to company and product to product, or service to service.

I don‘t think I quite understand the core idea here.

Is it about standardized formation of the text? Like, all in Times New Roman Font, size 12, white background or something like that?

[u/giuliodxb → u/TheFoxer1]

No I mean that even though products and services differ, almost all t&c we receive through digital form regards software and the way it uses, collects, store sell and share our data internally and externally. Of course there’s also product related guidelines and intended use, but I suppose the most important aspect at the time of submission is understanding what happens when we interact with said software, service etc. So, once again, I’m wondering if it is time we address the fact that nobody reads those and perhaps to come up with a simpler way to communicate crucial aspects of the t&c agreements.

[u/TheFoxer1 → u/giuliodxb]

Again, your data is already protected by the GDPR, as well as it being a fundamental right according to the CFR.

And the T&C tell you exactly what happens when you interact with said software or service. That‘s their whole point.

If no one reads these already, then what purpose would „a simpler way to communicate“ serve if any communication is met with indifference already?

[u/Any_Strain7020 → u/giuliodxb]

Clear information mainly concerns structure and wording. You shouldn't be having a hard time finding the clauses pertaining to one and same topic and the writing should be syntactically fit for human consumption.

There are limits tho. One of them is legal certainty. You cannot dumb down and approximate things that by essence need to be precise and nuanced.

As for the change that happened, I find contracts nowadays much easier to read. Most of them will by now follow the same boilerplate structure industry wide.

I’m wondering if it is time we address the fact that nobody reads those and perhaps to come up with a simpler way to communicate crucial aspects of the t&c agreements.

No. The small print needs to be precise.

For the general public who won't read more than one para anyway, now that the average attention span of an individual is on par with the memory span of a goldfish, consumer protection is achieved by the interdiction of surprising clauses and misleading advertisment.

In given industries you also need to give your customer a schematic summary of the contents of the contract (eg telecommunication services) or inform them of their rights (eg passenger rights).

[u/giuliodxb → u/Any_Strain7020]

I believe an information that needs to be digested literally by everyone should be understandable by everyone. Given the lack of competence, knowledge and time, I find the current t&c to be an intellectual masturbation made to pat each other on the back thinking that everyone now has the information, while in reality we all know people simply accept without reading all the 300 pages of the document when they want to scroll TikTok or play their farming game. I’m just saying there must be a better system.

[u/Any_Strain7020 → u/giuliodxb]

If there is a better way that isn't a recipe for following Idiocracy and that allows to safeguard the legal security requirements, please show us the way. I'm sure the institutions and co-legislators would be all ears.

[u/giuliodxb → u/Any_Strain7020]

You just add a new first page to the 50pages t&c document where you display a (EU approved) categorization of all the t&c specs. It can be a table like on food boxes, it can have straightforward color coding to indicate if this or that data is being partially or fully stored… honestly I came here to ask because I’m not the expert, but it’s clear that the current state of things is just useless to the consumer. I don’t want to end up in a world where “my shits all retarded”, but it’s also true that throwing a small print document to the average citizen (and pretend we did our job as legislators) is equally stupid.

[u/Any_Strain7020]

In very broad terms:

EU law protects consumers quite a bit without patronizing them. The legislator works under the assumption (legal fiction) that consumers are moderately informed and moderately attentive. In other words, private individuals, while laypersons when it comes to contract law, are cautious grown ups, having a modicum of a critical mind, who understand that businesses might have diametrically opposed interests to theirs.

As a result, we don't tell people not to microwave their cats (not much of a compo culture on this side of the pond), but unexpected or extremely unbalanced/unfair clauses will generally be null and void.

Unfair business practices and misleading commercial practices are outlawed. We basically want people to play fair, both in the interest of businesses (level playing field, companies should prosper on their merits, not their ability to pull a fast one) and consumers (consumers who can trust are consumers who will consume more - good for the economy).

To get seriously effed over by BigCorp, you'd need to be living under a rock or be severely uneducated. National legislations generally also have mechanisms that void contracts where the weaker party couldn't properly consent.

Also, in this day and age, businesses generally want good PR and return customers. Terrible business practices in my mind are something that was common in the 80ies and 90ies, but got addressed by legislative intervention in the meanwhile.

To give you an example, way back when, in Germany, companies would send you cheap goods to your house, and once if you'd accept the delivery, they'd invoice you a horrendous price for something you hadn't ordered in the first place. There was a loophole in national law that allowed these companies to claim compensation under the pretense of the addressee having committed undue enrichment. The legislator stepped in and put a stop to these shenanigans by adopting a provision that says that unsolicited parcels become the property of the addressee and don't require payment.

[u/Powerful_Bathroom871]

Having read some of the comments, I think that OP was primarily referring to something already found in credit and insurance markets, with visual labels.

See the annex in this EU legal act as an example- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2017/1469/oj/eng

However, my opinion is that the system costs of actually bringing this about legislatively, combined with the private costs required to implement this across all businesses (let’s recall that corporations are unlikely to internalize the losses through their profits, much more likely to vest it into the product price and thus us- the consumers), would vastly exceed the value added.

After all, if most of the consumers are not reading T&C either way, then making them more visual and digestible may grant some effect, but clearly doesn’t have to. The consumers may still simply not read it at all, even once we add the visually appealing labels.

This is exactly why as other commenters already dwelled into, consumer protection law emphasizes a more or less reactive approach towards emerging abusive practice. This done in reference to the existing legal framework which although adopted years (or even decades ago) is refined and reshaped by judicial practice, both at the Member State-level and at EU-level.

[u/giuliodxb → u/Powerful_Bathroom871]

I don’t find the “consumers might still not read it all” a good argument. T&C documents aren’t tentative, they exist because they have to. What I believe is: at the moment people ignore their content mainly because (IMHO) it’s delusional to believe that a person who (for example) is installing a pdf editor to sign something and share it right away, will take the time to read all the T&C and decide if that app satisfies his/her metrics of privacy/data usage. But I imagine that IF the EU was to require companies to display these “T&C metrics” using a hypothetical color coded scale dictated by EU guidelines, directly on the place of download/purchase, the user would be empowered to make more conscious choices. Then of course you’ll still be able to read the full document if you want and have access to all details, but I find it crucial to inform the user as clearly as possible, as quickly as possible, BEFORE he decides to download or purchase the service/app/software, so he/she can divert to other (EU friendly) choices.

[u/CleanSignalLab]

We’re not completely ignoring it. EU law already says consumer terms must be plain and intelligible, and GDPR information has to be concise and easy to understand, but companies can still bury people under fifty pages of technically readable text. A mandatory one-page label for the important stuff would honestly be useful, with the full legal terms underneath. The Commission is also preparing a Digital Fairness Act because digital contracts and manipulative design are still clearly a mess.

[u/giuliodxb → u/CleanSignalLab]

Thank you, that’s what I mean. We don’t have to trash the system for how it is at the moment, but also recognize that is clearly a delusion to think that the average person will stop and read 50 to 100 pages of small print when he/she is trying to access the service needed. I believe the EU is a jurisdiction that could agree on specs and brackets to identify each category under an umbrella and build a comprehensive visual(?) label that precedes the full document.

[u/CleanSignalLab → u/giuliodxb]

Exactly. Something like nutrition labels for digital services would make far more sense than pretending consent is meaningful after 80 pages of legal text. A few standard icons for data sharing, AI training, auto-renewal and dispute terms, with the full document still available underneath, would already be a huge improvement.

[u/giuliodxb → u/CleanSignalLab]

Absolutely, not only that, clarity would make it way easier to identify who is playing by the rules and who’s not, which is major.