Man claims Google owes him $500 billion for not cancelling his YouTube account

Man claims Google owes him $500 billion for not cancelling his YouTube account
David Stebbins, who has previously demanded $600 billion from Wal-Mart, claiming they entered into a contract with him by responding to an email, has now filed a motion to force Google to pay him $500 billion.

Stebbins claims to have amended YouTube's Terms Of Service (TOS), requiring them to either terminate his account within 30 days or pay him $500 billion. He says those same TOS allow him to do so:



Paragraph B of Section 1 of these terms state that the terms can be unilaterally modified at any time. If the other party does not wish to accept the new terms, they may sever the contractual relationship.

On March 22, 2011, I took Youtube up on that generous offer and sent them an email announcing my own modifications to the Youtube terms of service.
Paragraph B of Section 1 of these terms state that the terms can be unilaterally modified at any time. If the other party does not wish to accept the new terms, they may sever the contractual relationship.


So what were his amendments? Most of them aren't clear in the filing, having been redacted by scribbling over them with a pen.

However, he did leave a portion untouched which he claims entitles him to binding arbitration or, if Google fails to respond to an arbitration request within 24 hours, automatic judgement in his favor.

He explains this in his motion:

If I send them an invitation to arbitrate a claim, and they do not accept this invitation within 24 hours of receiving it, I automatically win. I do not even have to go to arbitrationand invoke Rule 36 of the National Arbitraation Forum Code of Procedure; I just... win... period.


Read the entire filing below.




Written by: Rich Fiscus @ 18 Aug 2011 11:59
Tags
Google YouTube Lawsuit Contract
Advertisement - News comments available below the ad
  • 24 comments
  • Morreale

    Lmao what a tool

    *\\\****//\\\***//\\\*****
    **\\\**//**\\\*//**\\\*******
    ***\\\//****\\\ ****\\\****

    18.8.2011 12:51 #1

  • Mysttic

    I honestly can't see what judge would rule in this guy's favor. I can see damages sure, as every site you have an account with these days gives out information for advertising and spam. But the amount he's asking for is just... Well good luck buddy but I can't see it, because then everyone would be after google for that amount, as this case would be a precedence and no sane judge would want to tackle that.

    I stand corrected after I read further, this idiot believes he can amend without witness or legal representation a terms of service that is owned by a corporation... MWAHAHAHAHAHA

    18.8.2011 13:16 #2

  • JGJD2001

    someone lock this gold digging fool up.....heck someone send him an email and if he does not respond he owes us 1 gazillion billion dollars lol

    Who Dare Wins

    18.8.2011 13:22 #3

  • Clam_Up

    The ridiculous size of the award he's seeking aside, I think this is great!

    Multiple times a year I get a letter from my credit card companies telling me that I now agree to an ever changing set of terms and conditions, all in fine print which even those with Harvard MBAs find confusing.

    All he's done is turn the tables. He made changes to his side of the agreement which were completely ignored, yet by not taking appropriate action, Google and Wal-Mart inadvertently became obligated to the shocking and outrageous terms of the agreement. Corporations take advantage of people every day doing this very thing.

    I've often wondered whether I could return one of these 100,000 word small-print legal agreements to my bank with my own modifications and see if anyone notices.

    I say good for him! I've been curious about what would happen if someone used the tactics of these massive corporations for their own benefit, and now I get to find out.

    18.8.2011 14:00 #4

  • patrick_

    No idea how this works in the USA, but over here, what he did is called "Acting in bad faith".

    18.8.2011 14:14 #5

  • ccwdude

    Priceless

    What the F--k is Juice? I want some grape drink baby. Its purple. Sugar...Water...Purp​le

    18.8.2011 14:19 #6

  • vurbal

    Originally posted by patrick_: No idea how this works in the USA, but over here, what he did is called "Acting in bad faith". I believe it would be the same here. In fact, if you look at the email he included, he went so far as to use "Check this out" as the subject, which was pretty clearly intended to ensure it would either be caught by a spam filter or deleted by the recipient without being opened.

    Rich Fiscus
    @Vurbal on Twitter
    AfterDawn Staff Writer

    18.8.2011 14:27 #7

  • xnonsuchx

    Sounds as crazy as that Orly Taitz birther moron! Yes, I know "birther moron" is redundant.

    18.8.2011 16:02 #8

  • nonoitall

    Article title says $500 million. Not that it really makes much difference. :-P

    18.8.2011 16:41 #9

  • vurbal

    Originally posted by nonoitall: Article title says $500 million. Not that it really makes much difference. :-P Good catch! I guess my fingers just have a hard time typing something that stupid.

    Rich Fiscus
    @Vurbal on Twitter
    AfterDawn Staff Writer

    18.8.2011 16:51 #10

  • ThePastor

    A long time ago, here in San Diego, a car dealership put up a bilboard stating you could "Get a Volare for a song", advertising the Volare car.
    A couple went into the dealership and sang "Happy Birthday to you" and demanded their car.
    They won.

    This guy will not get 500 billion, but I love what he's done. I'm looking through my contracts now for something simialr! :D

    Unfortunately for them, all Blu-ray protections have been broken and BD rips can be found around the Internet, usually before the retail even hits shelves.

    18.8.2011 19:59 #11

  • aldan

    definetly a few fries short of a happy meal.

    18.8.2011 20:47 #12

  • llongtheD

    They need to make these idiots pay for all costs involved in suing, including the defendants costs, should they loose. I have never understood why these losers can file these frivolous lawsuits and not be held accountable in most cases.

    If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

    18.8.2011 22:33 #13

  • KillerBug

    This guy is not doing it for the money, I don't think so anyway. He wouldn't be making such insane demands if he was. The goal here is to make it so that contracts of this nature are a liability, and thus companies will use them less often. This is a good thing, as contracts like this are often used to excuse outrageous behavior and huge changes to products and services, often after payment is rendered.

    Just look at Sony...their ToS essentially says that they can remotely remove any or all features from a PS3 remotely for no reason at all...they are even allowed to brick your system remotely for no reason, and there is nothing you can do but join a class action suit that will end with them not being allowed to sell the PS3...but it happen until after they discontinue the PS3 and sell off all the extra stock.

    If his goal is to make contracts like this impractical or even illegal, then more power to him!


    19.8.2011 01:12 #14

  • llongtheD

    Originally posted by KillerBug: This guy is not doing it for the money, I don't think so anyway. He wouldn't be making such insane demands if he was. The goal here is to make it so that contracts of this nature are a liability, and thus companies will use them less often. This is a good thing, as contracts like this are often used to excuse outrageous behavior and huge changes to products and services, often after payment is rendered.

    Just look at Sony...their ToS essentially says that they can remotely remove any or all features from a PS3 remotely for no reason at all...they are even allowed to brick your system remotely for no reason, and there is nothing you can do but join a class action suit that will end with them not being allowed to sell the PS3...but it happen until after they discontinue the PS3 and sell off all the extra stock.

    If his goal is to make contracts like this impractical or even illegal, then more power to him!
    I didn't take the time to read between the lines on that. I like your take on it.
    I'm just so sick of hearing about all of these lawsuits, I jumped to that conclusion.

    If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

    19.8.2011 04:46 #15

  • FreddyF

    I don't think 24 hours is enough, and e-mail is probably not an appropriate method of delivery. But if the agreement stated any party may make modifications ant hey hust be rejected by Google, if he had sent it certified mail(unless e-mail delivery is allowed and he has proof of receipt) of course 30 days is probably standard for a response time, maybe. They wouldn't be the first company to be screwed by their own contract their own lawyers wrote. Just because they have lawyers doesn't mean they are good lawyers.

    Even if they gave him $1 and paid legal fees it would be a monster victory, but if he has proof of receipt give him 1 to 10%, if he had mailed or fedexed it with a receipt and given them 30 days, I would vote for 10% minimum, I would feel basd though unless Google starts being a patent troll too.

    The advice to everyone is to read all the User agreements that 99% of the people agree to without reading, but perhaps the companies that use them should read them first!

    19.8.2011 08:57 #16

  • Mr-Movies

    You’re right on both accounts FreddyF! These types of contracts should be unconstitutional just like fair use states, it is pretty sad that lawyers can just about state anything and make it stand.

    19.8.2011 13:32 #17

  • babysatan

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    babysatan will rip your soul...

    19.8.2011 17:15 #18

  • drhanaba

    Originally posted by llongtheD: They need to make these idiots pay for all costs involved in suing, including the defendants costs, should they loose. I have never understood why these losers can file these frivolous lawsuits and not be held accountable in most cases. It's funny that you call his suit frivilous?? Do you believe that suits filed by corporation against another corporation is frivilous??? The corporations have some of us bozoed into thinking that anytime we sue one of them it is frivilous! However, they will sue in a heartbeat. A woman near here in Alabama is being sued for a 10,000 water bill. How likely is that for one month's use??? Just saying!!

    19.8.2011 20:38 #19

  • llongtheD

    Originally posted by drhanaba: Originally posted by llongtheD: They need to make these idiots pay for all costs involved in suing, including the defendants costs, should they loose. I have never understood why these losers can file these frivolous lawsuits and not be held accountable in most cases. It's funny that you call his suit frivilous?? Do you believe that suits filed by corporation against another corporation is frivilous??? The corporations have some of us bozoed into thinking that anytime we sue one of them it is frivilous! However, they will sue in a heartbeat. A woman near here in Alabama is being sued for a 10,000 water bill. How likely is that for one month's use??? Just saying!! Read the entire thread next time, I posted a second time. However, if you don't think there are too many frivolous lawsuits clogging our courts that you and I are paying for, then don't know what to tell you.

    If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

    19.8.2011 23:26 #20

  • llongtheD

    apologies, double post

    If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

    19.8.2011 23:26 #21

  • aldan

    It's funny that you call his suit frivilous?? Do you believe that suits filed by corporation against another corporation is frivilous??? The corporations have some of us bozoed into thinking that anytime we sue one of them it is frivilous! However, they will sue in a heartbeat. A woman near here in Alabama is being sued for a 10,000 water bill. How likely is that for one month's use??? Just saying!![/quote

    If I send them an invitation to arbitrate a claim, and they do not accept this invitation within 24 hours of receiving it, I automatically win. I do not even have to go to arbitrationand invoke Rule 36 of the National Arbitraation Forum Code of Procedure; I just... win... period.

    you are right,its not ridiculous.its downright ridiculous.its all well and good to have a claim but has he even established this claim with the courts?hell i could send you an email claiming damages,and if you dont reply do you lose and i get compensation? i dont think so.its suits like this one that make a mockery of the legal system.i wonder how he made out against wall mart.

    20.8.2011 02:45 #22

  • leemoo

    Why is this fool even making news!!!

    23.8.2011 05:11 #23

  • Xplorer4

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/18151114049/replying-to-email-does-not-create-contract-does-not-require-walmart-pay-600-billion.shtml
    He tried the 24 hour thing with walmart and it failed in court:
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/18151114049/replying-to-email-does-not-create-contract-does-not-require-walmart-pay-600-billion.shtml

    Thermaltake Mozart TX Case - Core i7 860 - MSI P55-GD65 - 2x2 GB DDR3 G.Skill Ripjaws - Sapphire 4890 1 GB Vapor X - 2 Intel X25-M Mainstream SSDSA2M080G2R5 in RAID 0 - 1x1TB WD Caviar Black - 1x1TB WD Caviar Green - 1x2TB WD Caviar Black - 1x2TB WD Caviar Green - Corsair HX520 PSU

    24.8.2011 19:52 #24

© 2022 AfterDawn Oy

Hosted by
Powered by UpCloud