Question

Regarding "Terms of Use" & Their Discussion of Their Revision

  • 31 December 2020
  • 1 reply
  • 45 views

Regarding the contents of the “Terms of Use”, is Shadow amenable to discussion with the community regarding updating said terms? 

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.

Is Blade amenable to dropping this clause of their Terms of Use?

 

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?

Is Blade amenable to dropping this clause of their Terms of Use?


This topic has been closed for comments

1 reply

Userlevel 4
Badge +4

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?

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.”

I am a volunteer and do not speak for Blade. The following is my interpretation and may not be correct. If you want to be 100% sure of accurate information, contact Blade directly (by opening a support ticket), or ask for a lawyer’s help in reviewing the TOS.

If your account is terminated, you are responsible for the rest of your payment. That responsibility begins immediately on termination. If for whatever reason you can’t pay it, then it’s going to be a debt against you, in your name, that you can clear the debt by paying it off.

This is an extremely similar contract clause to, say, leasing a cell phone. If you cancel the contract, you are responsible for the rest of the cost of the lease. It’s basically saying, “you either owe us this money now, or later. The only way you can pay it later is to stay in good faith with us. Canceling your contract loses your good faith, and so then you owe the money immediately.”

Essentially, if you aren’t willing to make that promise to pay that money, then don’t make the promise. Don’t become a customer. (Or perhaps seek a month-to-month plan where you wouldn’t be responsible for a whole year’s worth of service if you get terminated.)

The next, I believe you misread. It’s not that they are blocking arbitration, they are blocking consolidated arbitration. Basically you can seek arbitration between one party, you, and one party, them. That’s it. Combining up with any other users and trying to seek action together (or allowing your lawyer or arbitrator to do so) is not allowed.

As with all contracts, if the law doesn’t allow such a contract to be valid, then the law overrides the contract, but that’s getting into actually knowing the law for your given state or country and you’d be much better confirming with your lawyer what your options actually are.

Again, I am not a lawyer and I do not speak for this company, this is my personal interpretation that I’m providing to try to help answer your concerns.