Rethinking terms and conditions

The story of the Russian man who amended credit card terms in his own favour is well over a year old now, but it’s a good ‘un.

Thing is, it all went quiet after that: no mention of any outcome anywhere that I can find. Maybe it was settled quietly, or he “disappeared”, we’ll probably never find out.

Interestingly, at the time the case seemed to hinge on whether the man was legally obligated to highlight the amendments prior to the bank agreeing to them, or if the act of altering them was technically a counter-offer to their proposed terms. If a bank alters terms after you’ve signed, it is legally obligated to notify you and (usually) give you a risk-free exit if the terms are not to your liking. But any alterations to the terms prior to signing are not, I assume, covered by a notification clause. I’m no lawyer, but that seems a reasonable, common-sense interpretation.

Since printed documents may well be out-of-date by the time you receive them, companies use tricks like citing a website holding current Terms & Conditions, which supersede the printed copy if there are differences. But since the guy in this case also altered the website URL of the terms to point at his own site, and thus his own wording, it seems the bank are obligated to use his version once they signed the agreement. And since the printed copy they signed did not reference the bank’s Ts and Cs, they probably don’t apply.

The bank are of course claiming fraud, but I can’t see at what stage this alleged fraud occurred.

In a further ironic twist, the bank’s founder took to Twitter stating he expects the man to receive a four-year jail term and no payout. This hot-headed approach of calling him out on fraud prior to a judicial hearing has given the man yet another option to sue the bank: for libel / defamation of character. There have been some interesting cases that have come to light in recent years of people making statements on Twitter that have resulted in legal action. I wonder if the lack of press coverage about the outcome of the trial was due in no small part to this interesting and multi-layered look at the way contract law and social media collide.