[blackshoe]

I just got an email from the ACBL in response to a report I sent them about a bad link on their website. It contained the following, at the bottom:

Quote

If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

This is part of what seems to be a fairly standard disclaimer. I wonder, though… I suppose they can prohibit me, personally, since I'm a member of the ACBL*, but suppose I weren't? Suppose some damning email were accidently sent to someone like Nancy Grace, with this prohibition attached. Would she be legally bound by it? (I daresay it wouldn't matter to her if she was, but that's a different issue).

* I would also think the only sanctions they could impose if I ignored the prohibition would be those defined in the rules of the organization, presumably up to and including expulsion. Any monetary redress or other sanction would have to be pursued through the courts. Not sure how that would go.

[barmar]

IANAL, but I suspect most boilerplate like that is totally bogus. If you've never signed a non-disclosure agreement, you can't be compelled not to disclose something you learn legally. If the sender screws up, that's not your problem. So I think you should treat it as a request, but they've written it as a legal requirement to scare people who don't know better.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2011-November-10, 15:19, said:

IANAL, but I suspect most boilerplate like that is totally bogus. If you've never signed a non-disclosure agreement, you can't be compelled not to disclose something you learn legally. If the sender screws up, that's not your problem. So I think you should treat it as a request, but they've written it as a legal requirement to scare people who don't know better.

That's pretty much my take, although as I said, they may have some basis for sanction (within their own rules) against an ACBL member. As for that last bit, people do that, but I think ethically it stinks.

[barmar]

Yes, it stinks, although mildly compared to some practices. Companies are often known to send letters with threats of lawsuits in situations where they know they have no legitimate expectation of winning, and probably would not carry out the threat. If the target has limited resources, they'll often back down rather than call the bluff, because they can't afford to fight if it does go to court.

I just went through the "Join the ACBL" pages on the ACBL web site, and at no time was I required to accept a membership agreement requiring me to abide by their demands. The last page (where I would have entered my credit card info) has this on it:

Quote

ACBL Legal Notices
Dues are not tax-deductible and are subject to change at any time.
Your dues include subscriptions to The Bridge Bulletin and to unit/district publications as applicable.
By becoming a member in the ACBL or renewing membership in the ACBL, you consent to be a member of an ACBL unit or district as determined by residence, with exceptions as approved by the appropriate units or districts.
By becoming a member in the ACBL or renewing membership in the ACBL or remitting Life Member service fees (or otherwise maintaining your Life Membership status in the ACBL), you expressly agree to waive your right to have disputes between you and the ACBL resolved in court before a jury and agree to accept the use of binding arbitration, and the ACBL hereby agrees to such binding arbitration. For specifics of the ACBL binding arbitration agreement, please go to http://www.acbl.org/...rbitration.html.
For information on the ACBL privacy policy, please go to http://www.acbl.org/...vacyPolicy.html.

So the only thing we've apparently agreed to is that we won't sue the ACBL but instead use binding arbitration (thanks, Blubaugh).

[Zelandakh]

Both of the links in the Legal Notices give me 404 errors - I thought the Privacy Policay in particular might be relevant to the discussion at hand. In general I would note that clauses such as this one, denying you access to a court, are commonly included in legal documents but most lawyers would tell you they will not usually stand up if challenged. This is similar to "applicable law" clauses which specify that legal battles can only be decided by a particular country or state. If the ACBL genuinely believe that they could, for example, take a membership fee twice and not be subject to court action should they refuse to return the money then they are deluding themselves.

[blackshoe]

The reason for the 404 errors is the incorrect inclusion of the final period in the links. Delete that and you'll have good links.

[barmar]

I've fixed the links in my post.