Informed Consent to Online Standard Form Agreements

Rob Nicholls
{"title":"Informed Consent to Online Standard Form Agreements","authors":"Rob Nicholls","doi":"10.54648/gplr2022017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the issues associated with online consent to ‘take it or leave it’ contracts, also known as standard from agreements. It does this by describing the concepts of standard form agreement and their deviations from bilateral contracts. It also sets out the meaning of informed consent. With these concepts established, the article analyses informed consent in online standard form agreements and provides an analysis of the factors impacting informed consent. The article also draws a distinction between unfairness and unconscionability.\nThe article demonstrates that courts and regulators look the other way when it comes to recognizing substantive unfairness and unconscionability in online standard form agreements. It discusses the legal, economic, behavioural and social dynamics of informed consent in the context of the Australian marketplace. The article demonstrates that, in Australia, the focus on procedural unfairness and procedural unconscionability as threshold requirements have prevented the notion of informed consent from voiding particular terms. That is, as long as there was notice and an opportunity to read, in Australia the actual content of the terms seems to have limited importance.\nAustralia, Standard Form Agreements, Unconscionability, Unfairness, Informed Consent","PeriodicalId":127582,"journal":{"name":"Global Privacy Law Review","volume":"640 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Privacy Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gplr2022017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines the issues associated with online consent to ‘take it or leave it’ contracts, also known as standard from agreements. It does this by describing the concepts of standard form agreement and their deviations from bilateral contracts. It also sets out the meaning of informed consent. With these concepts established, the article analyses informed consent in online standard form agreements and provides an analysis of the factors impacting informed consent. The article also draws a distinction between unfairness and unconscionability. The article demonstrates that courts and regulators look the other way when it comes to recognizing substantive unfairness and unconscionability in online standard form agreements. It discusses the legal, economic, behavioural and social dynamics of informed consent in the context of the Australian marketplace. The article demonstrates that, in Australia, the focus on procedural unfairness and procedural unconscionability as threshold requirements have prevented the notion of informed consent from voiding particular terms. That is, as long as there was notice and an opportunity to read, in Australia the actual content of the terms seems to have limited importance. Australia, Standard Form Agreements, Unconscionability, Unfairness, Informed Consent
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
知情同意在线标准表格协议
本文探讨了与在线同意“接受或离开”合同相关的问题,也被称为标准协议。它通过描述标准形式协议的概念及其与双边合同的偏差来做到这一点。它还规定了知情同意的含义。在建立这些概念的基础上,本文对网络标准协议中的知情同意进行了分析,并对影响知情同意的因素进行了分析。文章还对不公平和不合理进行了区分。这篇文章表明,法院和监管机构在承认在线标准格式协议中的实质性不公平和不合理时,采取了另一种方式。它讨论了澳大利亚市场背景下知情同意的法律、经济、行为和社会动态。文章表明,在澳大利亚,将程序不公平和程序不合理作为门槛要求的重点,阻止了知情同意的概念使特定条款无效。也就是说,只要有注意和阅读的机会,在澳大利亚条款的实际内容似乎是有限的重要性。澳大利亚,标准格式协议,不合理,不公平,知情同意
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial: Key Privacy Concepts in the EU and Canada The Personal Data Under the GDPR: Concept, Elements, and Boundaries News: APAC Privacy News Collection of Personal Information in Canadian Law Case Note: Strengthening the Role of Google? Recent Developments in the Right to Be Forgotten Case Law of the CJEU (TU and RE v. Google LLC, C-460/20)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1