Feeds

FSA: Of course customers don't read contracts

Silly to expect otherwise

High performance access to file storage

Companies should not reject customer complaints because they ticked a box saying they had read and understood an unfair contract, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has said.

The FSA said that companies should not even ask consumers to assert that they had read and understood a contract or a set of terms and conditions because they are not likely to have done so.

Even if a company has asked a consumer to confirm that they have, the company should not rely on that assertion to ignore complaints about unfair contract terms, the FSA said.

The FSA said that the practice of including a checkbox for consumers to confirm that they have read and understood terms and conditions is a breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

"Firms should provide consumers with an opportunity to read a contract, understand it and ask questions about any aspects of the contract that they are unsure of," said guidance (pdf) published by the FSA. "A declaration requiring consumers to agree that they have read and understood a contract is, in our view, unfair. This is because the statement may not be true and may not reflect what has actually happened.

"Consumers may not have either read or understood the contract and so are not in a position to declare that they have in fact done so. In this instance, the declaration is effectively meaningless and does not reflect the circumstances in which the particular consumer signs their contract," it said.

"The law requires consumers to be given an opportunity to examine all the terms in a contract. A declaration of this nature could be used by a firm to claim that it gave customers an opportunity to read a contract when it did not actually do so. The firm could argue that because a consumer has signed to say that they have read and understood a contract, this means the firm has fulfilled its obligation to allow the consumer to examine all the terms. This may not in fact be true. Therefore the use of a declaration in this way is unfair," the FSA said.

The FSA ruled in a case last year (pdf) that a firm it regulated had acted unfairly when using a term that asked customers to confirm that they had 'read and understood' an agreement. That company, The On-Line Partnership, changed its term to read:

This is our standard client agreement upon which we intend to rely. For your own benefit and protection you should read these terms carefully before signing them. If you do not understand any point please ask for further information.

The FSA said that, like The On-Line Partnership's new term, agreements should warn customers that they should consult with a company about anything in an agreement that they do not understand.

"It is preferable for ‘have read and understood declarations’ instead to give a clear warning to consumers that they should read and understand terms before signing them and that consumers should ask questions if they do not understand any terms," said the FSA guidance.

Consumer regulator the Office of Fair Trading publishes guidance (pdf) on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations which also makes it clear that asking consumers to declare they have read and understood an agreement is unfair.

"Declarations that the consumer has read and/or understood the agreement give rise to special concerns. The Regulations implement an EU Directive saying that terms must be clear and intelligible and that consumers must have a proper opportunity to read all of them," said the guidance. "Including a declaration of this kind effectively requires consumers to say these conditions have been met, whether they have or not. This tends to defeat the purpose of the Directive, and as such is open to serious objection.

"In practice consumers often do not read, and rarely understand fully, any but the shortest and simplest contracts. It might be better if they tried to do so, but that does not justify requiring them to say they have done so whether they have or not," said the OFT guidance. "The purpose of declarations of this kind is clearly to bind consumers to wording regardless of whether they have any real awareness of it. Such statements are thus open to the same objections as provisions binding consumers to terms they have not seen at all."

Even when a company has included such a term in an agreement it should not then rely on that as the basis of a refusal to deal with a customer complaint, the FSA said.

"A consumer may, for example, complain about a particular contract term, claiming that it is unfair. The firm should then investigate the consumer’s complaint and decide whether or not the term is unfair, and if so take appropriate action to deal with any detriment suffered by the consumer," said the guidance.

"The firm should not argue that, since the consumer has signed a declaration to say that they have read and understood the contract, they are therefore not now entitled to complain about the fairness of a term in the contract or how it is applied," the FSA said.

The FSA said that it is perfectly fair for companies to ask consumers to declare some things, but only things that are within the direct experience of the consumer.

"Consumers are in the best position to know personal information such as their age, gender or address. They are also best placed to know facts such as whether or not they have had any insurance claims refused before, or whether they have any pre-existing medical conditions," said the FSA guidance. "Because the consumers know this information, we may well regard it as acceptable for consumers to sign declarations in respect of it."

Struan Robertson, a technology lawyer with Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said the views of the FSA and the OFT reflect the best practices that some websites have followed for several years.

"Our advice to most online retailers is to use a checkbox with a brief statement like 'I accept the terms and conditions', positioned above a confirmation button, with the words 'terms and conditions' serving as a link," said Robertson. "You can't make people read your terms, and everyone knows that they're generally ignored, but you can and should maximise the chances that they know what they're signing up to, and you can do that by other means.

"You should bring to the customer's attention any terms that are unusual or likely to come as a surprise before they hit that confirmation button," he said. "A bullet-point summary of three or four key terms can be a good way to do this in an online transaction without harming the user experience, though what's appropriate will vary according to what you're selling. When you're selling financial products, it's usually necessary to go further than that."

Copyright © 2010, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

High performance access to file storage

More from The Register

next story
Android engineer: We DIDN'T copy Apple OR follow Samsung's orders
Veep testifies for Samsung during Apple patent trial
One year on: diplomatic fail as Chinese APT gangs get back to work
Mandiant says past 12 months shows Beijing won't call off its hackers
Big Content goes after Kim Dotcom
Six studios sling sueballs at dead download destination
Alphadex fires back at British Gas with overcharging allegation
Brit colo outfit says it paid for 347KVA, has been charged for 1940KVA
Jack the RIPA: Blighty cops ignore law, retain innocents' comms data
Prime minister: Nothing to see here, go about your business
Singapore decides 'three strikes' laws are too intrusive
When even a prurient island nation thinks an idea is dodgy it has problems
Banks slap Olympus with £160 MEEELLION lawsuit
Scandal hit camera maker just can't shake off its past
France bans managers from contacting workers outside business hours
«Email? Mais non ... il est plus tard que six heures du soir!»
Reprieve for Weev: Court disowns AT&T hacker's conviction
Appeals court strikes down landmark sentence
US taxman blows Win XP deadline, must now spend millions on custom support
Gov't IT likened to 'a Model T with a lot of things on top of it'
prev story

Whitepapers

Mainstay ROI - Does application security pay?
In this whitepaper learn how you and your enterprise might benefit from better software security.
Five 3D headsets to be won!
We were so impressed by the Durovis Dive headset we’ve asked the company to give some away to Reg readers.
3 Big data security analytics techniques
Applying these Big Data security analytics techniques can help you make your business safer by detecting attacks early, before significant damage is done.
The benefits of software based PBX
Why you should break free from your proprietary PBX and how to leverage your existing server hardware.
Mobile application security study
Download this report to see the alarming realities regarding the sheer number of applications vulnerable to attack, as well as the most common and easily addressable vulnerability errors.