I read through it recently (can you imagine how bored I was to do that?) and I found a couple of provisions that I feel could be revised.
The first is:
“In the case of termination at the initiative of Blade following late payment, or a breach by the User of his or her legal obligations or these Conditions, and in particular the Code of Conduct, the User will be liable to pay Blade, on the date of cancellation, all the fees owed for the remaining period of the current Subscription Period, if applicable. This amount may be collected by Blade using the same means of payment used to pay the subscription bills, or by any other means.”
If I’m reading that correctly, if Blade (corporate entity of Shadow) decides to terminate the service of a user, they will require that you pay the remaining balance of your subscription period in a lump sum, at once, even though one would not actually have use of the service?
Is this meant to be punitive for those that get terminated? I mean, that is just straight up evil. Not only does someone lose access to the service, but they are required to pay, what would have been a monthly payment, in one lump sum immediately, for a service they no longer have access to? That just doesn’t seem fair. Loss of access to the service seems like enough punishment to me.
The second is:
“The User may only resolve disputes with Blade on an individual basis, and may not bring a claim as a plaintiff or a class member in a class, consolidated, or representative action. Class arbitrations, class actions, private attorney general actions, and consolidation with other arbitrations are NOT allowed.”
The evils of mandatory arbitration have been well documented in the last few years in many well respected journals and publications of record. I can link them if people wish, but they are easy to find with a simple search. Why would Blade want to force people to arbitration?