23andMe just sent out an email trying to trick customers into accepting a TOS change that will prevent you from suing them after they literally lost your genome ro thieves.

Do what it says in the email and email arbitrationoptout@23andme.com that you do not agree with the new terms of service and opt out of arbitration.

If you have an account with them, do this right now.

Here’s an email template for what to write: https://www.patreon.com/posts/94164861

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      What would you call it, unmitigated benevolence?

      Ok now that I have that out of my system, let’s see…

      trick /'trik/ noun

      • a cunning or skillful act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone.

      scheme /ˈskēm/ noun

      • a plan or program of action

      especially : a crafty or secret one

      outwit /au̇t-ˈwit/ verb

      • to get the better of by superior cleverness : outsmart

      What we have, in the immediate wake of a massive security breach, mind you, is an attempt to benefit the company by getting the better of the customers, writ large, by altering how disputes are handled. By taking the unusual step of requiring explicit opt-out from the new TOS within a short timeframe, they make it more likely that customers will “accept” the TOS without even realizing it and be in a worse position as a result.

      That qualifies as an act intended to outwit customers.

      Or, to put it another way, if they had contacted customers and asked for an opt in for the new TOS, nobody would consider that an attempt to outwit.

      So, yeah, this is a trick to further fuck over customers who are already victims of the company’s poor security practices.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        10 months ago

        that customers will “accept” the TOS without even realizing it

        Somebody – preferably a goddamn judge – really needs to start explaining to all these sociopathic corporate lawyers that…

    • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      They sent an email that seems standard and claims to be beneficial. I would have ignored it if I wasn’t aware of the current situation

    • catboss@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      It is a legit question. Usually you don’t have to pro-actively inform anyone that you disagree with anything, TOS included. That’s just what companies want you to believe since it benefits them greatly.

      No idea though how things in the U.S. are handled and if there are differences in certain states. It would surprise me though if that was actually an enforcable legal principle.

    • Objects in Space@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I don’t get why it’s a trick either. That’s the catchy headline right? But no word on if the changes apply into the past or it’s just lawyers trying to protect themselves for next time. It’s an email with new TOS and the ability to opt out.

      No it’s not good for users and yes it’s a shitty 30 day notice in an email even I didn’t read yet because I’m so irritated with them.

      But reading the patron post didn’t tell me how it was a trick and neither did the mastodon link. However the replies were good and helped fill me in on some details I wasn’t aware of yet on the actual breach. https://hachyderm.io/@thomasfuchs/111531294441702837

      Not sure why the down votes on a perfectly acceptable question.

      • Contestant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Asking users to Opt out as a method to replace an Opt in TOS is a trick because they are hoping users won’t see it. If they sent an email asking users to click a link to Opt in to the new TOS, that would be OK.