united-states internet terms-of-service
Can a site write whatever it wants in terms of use?
<p>I am reading the following terms of use</p>
<p><a href="https://jane.com/home/termsofuse" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://jane.com/home/termsofuse</a></p>
<p>Lets say I am a seller on this platform am I allowed to build a script on my local machine
That logs in to my account and list products for me instead of my secretary clicking the buttons.
Anyways we can do this manually why not do it automatically.</p>
<p>They do write in their terms of sales that
“use automated means to access the Site, or gain unauthorized access to the Site or Services or to any account or computer system connected to the Site;”</p>
<p>Are they allowed to dictate to me what software I use on my computer?
Where is the line between what they are allowed to request that I do to what I can do?
Can a site request that:</p>
<p>1)A user can only access the site if I am using a Microsoft mouse?</p>
<p>2)The user will only use the site from on iPhone and not android?</p>
<p>I am giving this examples to show that a site can’t request whatever they want.</p>

<h2>Yes But...</h2>
<p>The provider can include anything in the ToS document that s/he chooses to. It may or may not constitute a binding contract, and even if it does, all of its provisions  may or may not be enforceable, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction involved.</p>
<p>The ToS linked in the question includes the provision:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>BY ACCESSING OR USING THE SITE OR SERVICES, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS AND SUCH OTHER TERMS, CONDITIONS, POLICIES, AND DOCUMENTS THAT MAY BE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE,...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That kind of &quot;accept by access&quot; provision does not create a binding contract at all in many jurisdictions. There must be a positive affirmative act, such as signing a name, checking a box, or clinking an &quot;I accept&quot; button in such jurisdictions for the ToS to be a binding agreement.</p>
<p>In a fair number of jurisdictions, there must be consideration for a ToS to act as a valid contract.</p>
<p>Even where there is a binding agreement, a party must usually show damage to sue successfully. The website operator can reasonably argue that its interests are harmed by the use of automated means to access the site, or by bulk downloads. It is hard to see how the operator could argue reasonably that the use of a non-Microsoft mouse harms its interests.  This is because use of automated scraping tool potentially consumers significantly more bandwidth than a normal human user, and may increase server costs or hinder access by other users, while a change of mouse model has no such effect.</p>
<p>So, the site can <strong>request</strong> or purort to require whatever the operator chooses. Whether a suit to enforce such a requirement would be successful is a very different question.  A suit to block automated access has, IMO, a fair chance of success, and some precedent in its favor.  A suit to block access by a user using a Logitech mouse IMO does not.</p>
<p>Also, some particular provisions may be barred by law, although none of the ones mentioned in the question fall into that category as far as I know.</p>

<h2>Broadly, yes</h2>
<p>They have the right to choose who they do business with and under what circumstances. Just like you do.</p>
<p>Of course, they can’t dictate what software you use on your computer. Unless you have a contract with them where you agree that they can. Because you have the freedom to contract - if you agree to limit what you can otherwise do, you are free to do so.</p>
<p>When entering a contract each party takes on obligations to do or <em>not do</em> things in return for receiving the benefit of the contract. If a party doesn’t think the obligations are worth the benefit then they can (should) choose not to enter the contract.</p>
<p>Unless it’s illegal. Neither of your examples are illegal, indeed, many business offer iPhone apps and not Android apps or vice-versa.</p>
<p>It’s the exact same principle as “no shirt, no shoes, no service.”</p>
