I'm definitely not happy with being asked to give up my right to use the justice system just so I can remain a Webroot customer (which has probably been since around 2010).
Anybody else see this as bullying by another American corporation who has forgotten that the customer votes with her feet/dollars, and that 'the customer is always right'?
Page 1 / 1
Welcome to the Webroot Community! We're happy you're here.
We updated our EULA over 18 months ago, and the following is a short summary of some of the substantive changes we made:
We updated our EULA over 18 months ago, and the following is a short summary of some of the substantive changes we made:
- We added a dispute resolution clause for any disputes under the EULA, which includes an arbitration provision with a way for you to opt-out, and a class action waiver; We added that we can contact you via in-product messaging We clarified that we cannot use your personal data, except as described in the EULA and our Privacy Policy (available at https://www.webroot.com/us/en/legal/privacy) We made other clarifying and grammatical changes. If you are eligible, you may “out-opt” of the arbitration provision by following the instructions in the EULA.
- Please contact Customer Support if you have any further questions on the EULA as they will be able to assist you further.
For anyone interested, you can find a copy of Webroot's EULA HERE.
This EULA also contains the link for Arbitration Opt-Out.
Edit: After reading all of the legal mumbo-jumbo in the EULA, it appears that one must opt-out within 30 days of the "effective date" of the EULA. Unfortunately, the EULA does not show an "effective date", but according to@ 's post, "We updated our EULA over 18 months ago..." So I guess it's all a moot point.
HTH,
BD
This EULA also contains the link for Arbitration Opt-Out.
Edit: After reading all of the legal mumbo-jumbo in the EULA, it appears that one must opt-out within 30 days of the "effective date" of the EULA. Unfortunately, the EULA does not show an "effective date", but according to
HTH,
BD
I hope someone will clarify for me the terms we're throwing about here.
'Arbitration Clause' If I understand correctly, 'arbitration clause' applies to those who would 'opt out,' i.e., not desire to use arbitration as a form of settling an issue with Webroot, either on their own behalf or as a group.
'Dispute Resolution Clause' It is unclear what at this point how the term 'dispute resolution clause' applies to this discussion, whether on behalf of the customer or against him/her.
'Class Action Waiver' If I correctly understand, this term refers to a what a customer MUST grant to Webroot to continue to utilize Webroot's antivirus/web protection services...as a customer.
If, by agreeing to continue to use Webroot's services as a customer, I have no choice but to waive my right to any class action to which I or another Webroot user are entitled by the United States justice system, that would be, in my opinion, unjust.
To clarify I have no desire at this point in time to bring a class action against Webroot, in similar fashion, I suppose to Webroot having no desire to erroneously cause problems for its customers which would normally be settled via the justice system. However to demand of me (and hundreds of thousands of others at the same time) to give up my right to justice in case Webroot might cause serious harm is, in my opinion, irresponsible.
This is a matter of principle.
To say that the point is moot is to avoid the real issue. It may well be that the time to avoid waiving a right granted by the United States justice system has, in Webroot's eyes, passed. But that does not necessarily cause it to be so.
Glenn
This reminds me of the time I unknowingly took a Scientoglogy test, gave them my address and phone number, then I marked on their forms that I was inteested in reading more! Well, they wanted me to sign something that said I wouldn't sue them before they would even give me a book! That sent off warning bells in my brain just like this does!
I asked myself this tonight as the reoccuring arreement to eula popped up again.
Why would this company (and many others might I add) who has access to every aspect of my data wish for all of its subscribers to agree not to file suit against them?
Was there a collected data leak?
Its kind of weird such smart people can't inform us of the recent changes to the eula we must constantly agree with to remain a paying customer.
It should be stated what has changed (to and from)in the agreement if we are to accept it. HOW HARD IS THAT!!
Why would this company (and many others might I add) who has access to every aspect of my data wish for all of its subscribers to agree not to file suit against them?
Was there a collected data leak?
Its kind of weird such smart people can't inform us of the recent changes to the eula we must constantly agree with to remain a paying customer.
It should be stated what has changed (to and from)in the agreement if we are to accept it. HOW HARD IS THAT!!
I've only just come across this thread. Being a European customer, I never took much notice of the special articles in the Webroot SecureAnywhere EULA relating to US customers. But now looking at this article, I find it shocking.
The waiving of any legal right of any US customer to pursue Webroot, save by the avenue of the small claims court and, further, of the right to bring a class action in a small claims court, seems imo a particularly egregious violation of any natural sense of justice.
The ambiguity of the clause:
Without limiting Section 24(a) above, You have the right to litigate any Dispute in a court of general jurisdiction if You provide Webroot with written notice of Your desire to do so by providing Webroot with the information listed at https://www.webroot.com/consumer-arbitration within 30 days following the Effective Date (such notice, an "Arbitration Opt-out Notice")
Article 24(b) Webroot SecureAnywhere Solution Agreement
muddies the waters even more.
The "Effective Date" of what?? This is not stated. It honestly feels like an attempt to confuse, through ambiguity, the reader of the EULA.
The obvious question is:
Why does Webroot behave like this in its legal agreements??
The waiving of any legal right of any US customer to pursue Webroot, save by the avenue of the small claims court and, further, of the right to bring a class action in a small claims court, seems imo a particularly egregious violation of any natural sense of justice.
The ambiguity of the clause:
Without limiting Section 24(a) above, You have the right to litigate any Dispute in a court of general jurisdiction if You provide Webroot with written notice of Your desire to do so by providing Webroot with the information listed at https://www.webroot.com/consumer-arbitration within 30 days following the Effective Date (such notice, an "Arbitration Opt-out Notice")
Article 24(b) Webroot SecureAnywhere Solution Agreement
muddies the waters even more.
The "Effective Date" of what?? This is not stated. It honestly feels like an attempt to confuse, through ambiguity, the reader of the EULA.
The obvious question is:
I find it difficult to believe that the article in question would have a leg to stand on in any democratic country's justice system.@ wrote:
It may well be that the time to avoid waiving a right granted by the United States justice system has, in Webroot's eyes, passed. But that does not necessarily cause it to be so.
Why does Webroot behave like this in its legal agreements??
I'd like to mention that I'm not sure I've correctly understood what Webroot has written when updating their EULA.
But I did attempt through the proper channels to discover that, and it was suggested to me by Webroot that I read more of their published legalese.
I don't wish to be in conflict with Webroot.
I simply want someone to explain to me what I'm signing if what I'm expected to sign becomes complicated enough that I no longer comprehend what I'm signing while attempting in good faith to maintain a customer/provider relationship.
But I did attempt through the proper channels to discover that, and it was suggested to me by Webroot that I read more of their published legalese.
I don't wish to be in conflict with Webroot.
I simply want someone to explain to me what I'm signing if what I'm expected to sign becomes complicated enough that I no longer comprehend what I'm signing while attempting in good faith to maintain a customer/provider relationship.
Fair enough.@ wrote:
I don't wish to be in conflict with Webroot.
But to discover that the EULA is practically obliging me to "give up my right to use the justice system just so I can remain a Webroot customer" (post #1 of this thread) if I am a US customer, which is indeed what article 24 of the WSA EULA is saying, is not to my mind reasonable behaviour.
Just my 2 cents worth...
Wow, and no response from Webroot on this....Just crickets.....
Reply
Login to the community
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.