zlacker

Law professor here again.

For those who are interested in the legal and policy aspects of this, I highly recommend a book called Boilerplate by Margaret Radin. This is just one of many examples of comically abusive and bizarre contract terms that companies impose by imaginary consent.

>>paulto+(OP)
How are clauses like this even legal? One could argue they limit people's personal freedom and is essentially an anti-competition clause without an upside. Legitimate question, as I am finding it hard that a court would allow this.

>>scarla+A5
I haven't looked into the enforceability of this kind of contract in particular. That being said, there are arguments in the abstract that I'd apply---essentially, the argument that this kind of contract is against public policy because of those kinds of anti-competitive effects.

Without doing the research, it wouldn't surprise me if the extent to which these clauses were enforceable varied state-by-state. States tend to diverge a lot on these kinds of "unenforceable because against public policy" arguments.

>>scarla+A5
whenever I encounter a deep gray area contract like this my first thought is that its a play on cost of discovery. so long as it is ambiguous enough it just boils down to who can afford how much legal expense. when comparing deep pockets like oracle and some random reviewer/blogger its a done deal.

>>DesiLu+il
Yes. This is often true of all kinds of legally shady behavior, not just contracts. This is why things like class action litigation can be important, and other aggregation mechanisms. (There might be something to crowdfunding challenges in cases like this)