Does receiving an email informing me of a change in policy mean I automatically agree with it, unless I object? Several years ago I bought a domain name. I have never really used it, and have been wanting to get rid of it for quite some time now, but every year the hosting service finds another trick to make me pay for another year. (I admit: I'm playing a bit into their hand by being forgetful from time to time) This year I again get an invoice. I thought I cancelled through email or their ticketing system last year, but I can't find anything that confirms my memory. However, I did find something else. I found an email in which they said that up until now, their service is always prepaid. They will only extend the domain name after you pay the invoice. However, starting from that will change. From then on, their service will be subscription based. Which means that they will automatically extend the domain name, even without your approval, to avoid losing it. And honestly, I kinda get their change. I understand why many people would be happy with this, and I don't have a hard time believing that they made this change with the best intentions. And normally I wouldn't want to abuse this. But in this case, due to other unethical things they do and did in the past, I would like to get rid of them ASAP. So I wonder... does merely receiving this email mean that I am bound by their new policy? Or can I expect to still be under the old regime, where the service was prepaid? Note that this is (imho) different from services such as e.g. Facebook, where you actively use the service, so you agree to their ToS every time you log in. With domain names, you only use it passively. And in my case I didn't use it at all. The domain name hasn't been in use for years, and I haven't logged in on the webpage since last time I got an invoice. Jurisdiction: The company is situated in The Netherlands, while I myself live in Belgium.
What does the contract say? If it says that they have the right to unilaterally alter the terms by providing you with notice by email, then they have the right to unilaterally alter the terms by providing you with notice by email. These types of service contracts typically have such terms.
To paraphrase the Princess Bride: "I don't think those words mean what you think they do". The "truther-activist", "sovereign citizen", and "Citizen vs. Human Being" concepts will only hurt you. It has never succeeded, to my knowledge; It has failed multiple times. Let me tell you a little about myself to illustrate what I mean: I am a software developer (and it seems from your profile, you are at least somewhat computer inclined, so this will hopeful make sense to you). The business side of the company I work for think that myself and my team write "magic code", and having the system do whatever they ask for is just a matter of pressing enough buttons in the correct order. It totally insane, and it completely analogous to what you are propose. The court is a carefully designed system, and you don't have the power to make arbitrary changes to it. Certainly not through the "arbitrary button presses" of "legal fiction". Some things to note Legal fictions are never summoned. People are. Organizations are. See initial paraphrase with regards to "legal fiction". Your legal fiction has not been summoned, you have. You will be appearing as yourself, not a straw man. I'm sorry to break it to you, but whomever you have heard this from is wrong, and in the most best case scenario, they are confusing what they want to be true for reality. If they have received any money from you in relation to this opinion, then they are almost certainly a scammer and a liar. If you insist on going further with this nonsense, then you WILL lose, regardless of what actual facts you have. My condolences. Now, to answer the question you asked: Yes, you can file a monition for discovery before first appearance (but not before pleading). You can file by mail, and in some jurisdictions, online. Source: https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/goingtocourt/caseBasics.shtml.
Nobody know what constitutes "scamming", because it's not a legal concept. There is no sense in which receiving a gift itself constitutes "scamming". Since scamming is vaguely about dishonesty, there is an imaginable scenario where you could be liable for a false representation, for example if you impersonated someone else in order to receive something of value, you could be prosecuted in California. You should not assume that a police officer saying "That's not our problem" is proof that you committed no crime or civil tort. Your lawyer can give you advice as to whether you have anything to worry about, legally. The other stuff about being called a scammer or having pictures posted might be a violation of Facebook's TOS, and you can always complain to Facebook central authorities. Technically, uploading a picture that someone took is a violation of copyright law, if you didn't give permission to do so. It might run afoul of some state~provincial or national privacy law, depending on where this takes place.
Given a large database of email addresses that you can't prove have given consent to receive email, the only legal thing to do with it, is to (securely) delete it. (I am going to switch your question about a larger company to a bank: in the UK, big pharma is forbidden from advertising to individuals.) In principle the rules are the same for a huge bank and everything down to a self-employed plumber. In practice the plumber will be told "don't do that again" rather than fined. This case was treated under the Data Protection Act, which has a maximum fine of £500,000&nbsp;&ndash; so a big bank would probably have been fined more, but not necessarily much more. Under GDPR, fines are related to turnover, so the fine would be a lot bigger for a large bank. The incident is a year old now. Details here.
Yes, for those who 'liked' the business after reading the post, but less likely for those who had already liked the business. Under contract law, the business's post is an offer to share the winnings with anyone who is a friend of the business on Facebook. A promise is enforceable if consideration is provided under a bargain; the consideration can be of nominal value (e.g. the act of 'liking' a page). In the context of a business page, in a time when 'followers' and the like are regarded as valuable from a marketing perspective, it is entirely reasonable to interpret the post as offering an exchange of likes for a chance to win money. The commercial context and involvement of money would cause a court to presume that there was an intention to create a legally-binding contract (Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95; Banque Brussels Lambert SA v Australian National Industries Ltd (1989) 21 NSWLR 502). I am not entirely familiar with how the designation 'Friend' applies to businesses on Facebook. My understanding is that businesses have pages that are different to user pages. Businesses don't have 'friends'. They have people who 'like' the business. However, the word 'Friend' in the post has to be given content and therefore would be read as 'people who are listed as having liked this page'. People who had already liked the page are less likely to be able to enforce the promise to share the winnings, because they didn't do anything. They might be able to argue that they forwent the opportunity to un-like the business and that this forbearance is consideration. However, they would have to show that this was in consideration of the offer to share the winnings. Contract law is based on objective manifestations of agreement, not subjective thoughts (Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422), so it isn't necessary to show that the individual did in fact have the offer in mind when they liked (or didn't un-like) the page. However, it is necessary that the promisee have knowledge of the offer and not be acting out of some completely separate purpose (R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227); therefore if a user had liked the page some time ago and never knew about the offer until after the lottery was won, then they might have a hard time claiming a binding contract. Aside from contract law, the other possible head of liability is equitable estoppel (I mention this particularly for the people who had already 'liked' the business page before the offer was posted). However, equitable estoppel usually requires some element of detrimental reliance. Leaving a pre-existing 'like' on a page in reliance on a promise to share lottery winnings is unlikely to stir a court to find an equitable estoppel, since the detriment is trivial. Contrast Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387, where the detrimental reliance was knocking down a building and starting to construct a replacement. Equitable remedies are discretionary, so the judge has plenty of leeway to not order compensation. This answer is based on the common law. There is nothing in Texas law which would make the outcome any different to the outcome in any other common law jurisdiction.
You agreed to terms of use when you started using Mojang, posted at https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/terms and including: We may change these Account Terms from time to time, if we have reason to. For example, there might be changes to our games, our practices, or our legal obligations. We'll inform you of the change before it takes effect, either by posting a notice on our Website or some other reasonable way. If you use the Website or your account after the change, that means you agree to the changes. If you do not agree to the changes, stop using the Website. The changes will apply to your use of the Website when you next use it. That means Microsoft and Mojang can make a decisions like moving/merging your account without asking your permission. Website and product Terms of Service agreements are legally binding contracts, and you agreed to them when you started using their services. And refunds are part of the terms: RETURNS, REFUNDS AND CANCELLATION You or we may cancel your Mojang Account at any time or access to Minecraft.net, Mojang.com or any Mojang game titles using a Microsoft Account. When your account terminates or access is terminated, your rights under these Account Terms terminate. They can cancel your account at any time and not give you a refund. Can I force them to issue a refund? You can attempt to make your case in court, but a) you agreed to the contract, and 2) Microsoft has more money for lawyers than you do.
You have a contract - they have fulfilled their obligation (they paid you), if you do not fulfil their obligation (not to post it online) then you are in breach of the contract. Your obligation continues even if you gift the money back to them. If you breach the contract then they can sue you for the damage that they suffer. Presumably this would be damage to their reputation and for a public figure this could run into millions of dollars. In demanding additional money from them beyond what you are legally entitled to you are, at least, flirting with the crime of extortion/blackmail. This would not be a matter for them to sue you for, it would be a matter for the DA to prosecute if they chose to make a complaint. There doesn't seem to be a defamation issue here because you are not stating anything that isn't true. Now, the extent of the agreement appears to prohibit you posting it on the internet, however, the spirit of the agreement is that you will keep the information secret in all respects - that is likely how a court would look at it. Of course, if someone does steal the information from you then you haven't broken the agreement but you would probably have to prove that it was stolen when they sue you.
If anything, I think posting it for sale and notifying you is more evidence of bad faith. File a claim - it can't hurt, and the quicker you let ICANN know there's a dispute, the better. It doesn't cost anything to file. https://www3.wipo.int/amc-forms/en/udrp/eudrpcomplaint.jsp (It costs a hearing fee of $1500 - $4000 if it gets that far, but file the claim as soon as possible.) https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/