|
Man claims Google owes him $500 million for not cancelling his YouTube account
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 18 August, 2011
David Stebbins, who has previously demanded $600 billion from Wal-Mart, claiming they entered into a contract with him by responding to an email, has now filed a motion to force Google to pay him $500 billion.
Stebbins claims to have amended YouTube's Terms Of Service (TOS), requiring them to either terminate his account within 30 days or pay him $500 billion. He says those same TOS ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
Morreale
Senior Member
|
18. August 2011 @ 12:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Lmao what a tool
*\\\****//\\\***//\\\*****
**\\\**//**\\\*//**\\\*******
***\\\//****\\\ ****\\\****
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
Mysttic
Senior Member
|
18. August 2011 @ 13:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
I honestly can't see what judge would rule in this guy's favor. I can see damages sure, as every site you have an account with these days gives out information for advertising and spam. But the amount he's asking for is just... Well good luck buddy but I can't see it, because then everyone would be after google for that amount, as this case would be a precedence and no sane judge would want to tackle that.
I stand corrected after I read further, this idiot believes he can amend without witness or legal representation a terms of service that is owned by a corporation... MWAHAHAHAHAHA
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. August 2011 @ 13:18
|
Junior Member
|
18. August 2011 @ 13:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
someone lock this gold digging fool up.....heck someone send him an email and if he does not respond he owes us 1 gazillion billion dollars lol
Who Dare Wins
|
|
Clam_Up
Junior Member
|
18. August 2011 @ 14:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
The ridiculous size of the award he's seeking aside, I think this is great!
Multiple times a year I get a letter from my credit card companies telling me that I now agree to an ever changing set of terms and conditions, all in fine print which even those with Harvard MBAs find confusing.
All he's done is turn the tables. He made changes to his side of the agreement which were completely ignored, yet by not taking appropriate action, Google and Wal-Mart inadvertently became obligated to the shocking and outrageous terms of the agreement. Corporations take advantage of people every day doing this very thing.
I've often wondered whether I could return one of these 100,000 word small-print legal agreements to my bank with my own modifications and see if anyone notices.
I say good for him! I've been curious about what would happen if someone used the tactics of these massive corporations for their own benefit, and now I get to find out.
When laws allow unlimited ownership of ideas, it is to a society as iron fusion is to the core of a star.
When verified realities lead us to anger, we must learn to reevaluate our beliefs.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. August 2011 @ 02:03
|
|
patrick_
Junior Member
|
18. August 2011 @ 14:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
No idea how this works in the USA, but over here, what he did is called "Acting in bad faith".
|
Junior Member
|
18. August 2011 @ 14:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Priceless
What the F--k is Juice? I want some grape drink baby. Its purple. Sugar...Water...Purple
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
18. August 2011 @ 14:27 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by patrick_:
No idea how this works in the USA, but over here, what he did is called "Acting in bad faith".
I believe it would be the same here. In fact, if you look at the email he included, he went so far as to use "Check this out" as the subject, which was pretty clearly intended to ensure it would either be caught by a spam filter or deleted by the recipient without being opened.
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
18. August 2011 @ 16:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sounds as crazy as that Orly Taitz birther moron! Yes, I know "birther moron" is redundant.
|
Senior Member
|
18. August 2011 @ 16:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
Article title says $500 million. Not that it really makes much difference. :-P
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
18. August 2011 @ 16:51 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by nonoitall:
Article title says $500 million. Not that it really makes much difference. :-P
Good catch! I guess my fingers just have a hard time typing something that stupid.
|
Senior Member
|
18. August 2011 @ 19:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
A long time ago, here in San Diego, a car dealership put up a bilboard stating you could "Get a Volare for a song", advertising the Volare car.
A couple went into the dealership and sang "Happy Birthday to you" and demanded their car.
They won.
This guy will not get 500 billion, but I love what he's done. I'm looking through my contracts now for something simialr! :D
Oh, Im sorry... Did the middle of my sentence interrupt the beginning of yours?
|
Senior Member
|
18. August 2011 @ 20:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
definetly a few fries short of a happy meal.
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
18. August 2011 @ 22:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
They need to make these idiots pay for all costs involved in suing, including the defendants costs, should they loose. I have never understood why these losers can file these frivolous lawsuits and not be held accountable in most cases.
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. August 2011 @ 22:50
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
19. August 2011 @ 01:12 |
Link to this message
|
This guy is not doing it for the money, I don't think so anyway. He wouldn't be making such insane demands if he was. The goal here is to make it so that contracts of this nature are a liability, and thus companies will use them less often. This is a good thing, as contracts like this are often used to excuse outrageous behavior and huge changes to products and services, often after payment is rendered.
Just look at Sony...their ToS essentially says that they can remotely remove any or all features from a PS3 remotely for no reason at all...they are even allowed to brick your system remotely for no reason, and there is nothing you can do but join a class action suit that will end with them not being allowed to sell the PS3...but it happen until after they discontinue the PS3 and sell off all the extra stock.
If his goal is to make contracts like this impractical or even illegal, then more power to him!
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. August 2011 @ 04:46 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
This guy is not doing it for the money, I don't think so anyway. He wouldn't be making such insane demands if he was. The goal here is to make it so that contracts of this nature are a liability, and thus companies will use them less often. This is a good thing, as contracts like this are often used to excuse outrageous behavior and huge changes to products and services, often after payment is rendered.
Just look at Sony...their ToS essentially says that they can remotely remove any or all features from a PS3 remotely for no reason at all...they are even allowed to brick your system remotely for no reason, and there is nothing you can do but join a class action suit that will end with them not being allowed to sell the PS3...but it happen until after they discontinue the PS3 and sell off all the extra stock.
If his goal is to make contracts like this impractical or even illegal, then more power to him!
I didn't take the time to read between the lines on that. I like your take on it.
I'm just so sick of hearing about all of these lawsuits, I jumped to that conclusion.
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
|
|
FreddyF
Junior Member
|
19. August 2011 @ 08:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't think 24 hours is enough, and e-mail is probably not an appropriate method of delivery. But if the agreement stated any party may make modifications ant hey hust be rejected by Google, if he had sent it certified mail(unless e-mail delivery is allowed and he has proof of receipt) of course 30 days is probably standard for a response time, maybe. They wouldn't be the first company to be screwed by their own contract their own lawyers wrote. Just because they have lawyers doesn't mean they are good lawyers.
Even if they gave him $1 and paid legal fees it would be a monster victory, but if he has proof of receipt give him 1 to 10%, if he had mailed or fedexed it with a receipt and given them 30 days, I would vote for 10% minimum, I would feel basd though unless Google starts being a patent troll too.
The advice to everyone is to read all the User agreements that 99% of the people agree to without reading, but perhaps the companies that use them should read them first!
|
Senior Member
|
19. August 2011 @ 13:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
You?re right on both accounts FreddyF! These types of contracts should be unconstitutional just like fair use states, it is pretty sad that lawyers can just about state anything and make it stand.
|
Junior Member
|
19. August 2011 @ 17:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
babysatan will rip your soul...  |
|
drhanaba
Junior Member
|
19. August 2011 @ 20:38 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by llongtheD:
They need to make these idiots pay for all costs involved in suing, including the defendants costs, should they loose. I have never understood why these losers can file these frivolous lawsuits and not be held accountable in most cases.
It's funny that you call his suit frivilous?? Do you believe that suits filed by corporation against another corporation is frivilous??? The corporations have some of us bozoed into thinking that anytime we sue one of them it is frivilous! However, they will sue in a heartbeat. A woman near here in Alabama is being sued for a 10,000 water bill. How likely is that for one month's use??? Just saying!!
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. August 2011 @ 23:26 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by drhanaba:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
They need to make these idiots pay for all costs involved in suing, including the defendants costs, should they loose. I have never understood why these losers can file these frivolous lawsuits and not be held accountable in most cases.
It's funny that you call his suit frivilous?? Do you believe that suits filed by corporation against another corporation is frivilous??? The corporations have some of us bozoed into thinking that anytime we sue one of them it is frivilous! However, they will sue in a heartbeat. A woman near here in Alabama is being sued for a 10,000 water bill. How likely is that for one month's use??? Just saying!!
Read the entire thread next time, I posted a second time. However, if you don't think there are too many frivolous lawsuits clogging our courts that you and I are paying for, then don't know what to tell you.
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. August 2011 @ 23:31
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. August 2011 @ 23:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
apologies, double post
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. August 2011 @ 23:27
|
Senior Member
|
20. August 2011 @ 02:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's funny that you call his suit frivilous?? Do you believe that suits filed by corporation against another corporation is frivilous??? The corporations have some of us bozoed into thinking that anytime we sue one of them it is frivilous! However, they will sue in a heartbeat. A woman near here in Alabama is being sued for a 10,000 water bill. How likely is that for one month's use??? Just saying!
