The UFC is hoping that their free two month trial will get as many people as possible to sign up. They are even throwing in a fight card from Singapore to attract sign-ups. Fight Pass is aimed for audiences in America, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. And yet the Singapore card will air in Canada on Rogers 360.
The first thing I noticed right away with the Fight Pass Agreement is that they can change fees at any time and it’s incumbent upon you, the consumer, to regularly read the Terms of Use Agreement to see what the fee updates are. This is a standard provision that you see in the various zero TV online subscriber Agreements. It struck a chord with me, however, given that UFC is offering a two-month trial and already you have people getting charges for attempting to watch online videos.
So, what happens if Fight Pass turns you into a disgruntled customer? Well, that’s where the fun really begins.
There’s a section about refunds and an e-mail address you have to contact to try to get a response. Take note of the legalese with their repeated phrase “reasonable effort.” Which means you are at their mercy. They claim they will give pro-rated refunds as long as they don’t deem you violating their Terms of Use Agreement. So far, standard but unattractive Agreement language. But take note that their “reasonable effort” to give you a refund or credit is the “exclusive remedy.” In other words, take it or leave it. If they raise fees or start charging at any time, you gave up those rights when approving the Agreement. And if you want your money back, it’ll be on their terms.
Not only does the Agreement stipulate a statute of limitations for one year only, it specifies that the court venue must be in Clark County, Nevada. You have to fight in Nevada, only in Clark County, and it doesn’t specify a state or Federal court.
You are signing an online Agreement, most likely as a resident outside the state of Nevada, over the Internet with a Nevada company. Interstate commerce, right? And yet the Agreement says disputes in court have to be dealt with in their state and in their county.
If, somehow by chance of miracle, you are able to break through these contractual provisions by finding a judge or authority that can help you proceed to court, then comes another battle where if you lose you have to pay the attorney’s fees for the company you’re trying to fight with. And if you manage to get to court somehow, most likely as part of a class action lawsuit, then there are severability clauses in the agreements in which the Terms of Use Agreements can hold up as constituted if only part of the Agreement is struck down by a judge for violating the law.
Which brings us to the much larger point: if the people subscribing to UFC Fight Pass actually read the Terms of Use Agreement that they have to sign to become a subscriber, how many people would be dissuaded from signing up if they understood exactly what kind of rights they were giving up?
From my soapbox, I would strongly argue that there is a case to be made that these kinds of Term of Use Agreements are blatant Contracts of Adhesion with Unconscionable Terms.
A Contract of Adhesion basically is a deal that is so one-sided that the party trying to get out of the deal is stuck like glue because they have few rights to challenge the contract. In the case of these kinds of Agreements, they are non-negotiable — take it or leave it, and once you enter into such an Agreement, you’re stuck if you have a dispute that needs to be resolved about $ charges that you think have been unfairly billed to you. I would argue that the arbitration & court venue provisions in these Agreements are Unconscionable.
read the rest at http://www.fightopinion.com/2014/01/03/sticky-legal-agreement-ufc-fight-pass/
