Here are the two biggest problems Tim sees with Pizza Hut's "no choice" strategy:

First, it completely eliminated all of the value mentioned above that could have been created by an online order. Since we called in [and abandoned our online order], conversion costs increased, Pizza Hut will never have the opportunity to add our email address to their marketing lists (via a check or a non-uncheck), they will never have the chance to up sell or cross sell to us in an automated fashion, they have completely obliterated any loyalty we had and they provided an utterly terrible customer experience. Moreover, their customer retention and market share numbers just dwindled by a body count of two (my friend and I).

Second, the strategy that Pizza Hut is utilizing makes me wonder if most users don't notice what they're getting themselves into and if this is what Pizza Hut is shooting for. Well known practice in eCommerce is to force a customer to agree to a sites general terms of use in order to transact on that site. Sometimes, at the same time a user is agreeing to the Terms of Use, a second, optional, opportunity is provided that allows the the customer to opt-in to advertising. If only one option is given, it is by and large a Terms of Use agreement. Therefore, if a customer only sees one option, and doesn't read the details, they assume that they are agreeing to a sites Terms of Use, and that no option to opt-in to advertising exists, let alone that they are opting in if they agree to the Terms of Use.

For those who initially opted-in to receive future offers or promotional materials or to allow the sharing of Personal Information with third parties may subsequently opt-out as follows:

For email communications: (a) send an e-mail to webmaster@pizzahut.com or (b) if you are a registered user, deselect the option on your accounts profile page under "My Account" on Our website;

For text message communications, (a) send an email to webmaster@pizzahut.com and include the appropriate mobile telephone number(s), (b) send a "STOP" text message to "749488" or (c) if you are a registered user, deselect the option on your accounts profile page under "My Account" on Our website.

"That's Freaking Spam-tastic: PizzaHut.com Requires Customers to Opt-In to Advertising When Ordering Online" [PlumberSurplus]

We are revising the terms of service to clarify our intent. The language in question will be revised to reflect AT&T's respect for our customers' right to express opinions and concerns over any matter they wish. And we will make clear that we do not terminate service because a customer expresses their opinion about AT&T.

AT&T Changes its 'Terms of Service' [GigaOM] (Thanks to David!)
AT&T tells me it will revise "damage our name" language in TOS [ZDnet]
PREVIOUSLY: AT&T Promises To Not Terminate Your Service For Criticizing Them
AT&T And Verizon Can Cancel Service Of Subscribers Who "Damage" Their "Reputation"
(Photo: gorriti)

The two major issues in the unlocking restriction are:

• The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which "makes it illegal to break digital locks to get at copyrighted works." But last year, the librarian of Congress issued an exemption for unlocking for personal use:

As the librarian wrote, the locks "are used by wireless carriers to limit the ability of subscribers to switch to other carriers, a business decision that has nothing whatsoever to do with the interests protected by copyright."

• Your terms of service, which Apple claims you violate if you unlock the phone. The columnist's opinion here is a bit murkier—Apple has taken great pains to make their unlocking ban legally enforceable by lumping it under "reverse engineering," but "copyright allows reverse engineering for compatibility as a 'fair use,'" writes the author.

As readers pointed out in this post, maybe it's time we ban the practice of locking phones altogether, to prevent companies from engaging in anti-competitive behavior like this.

"The iPhone Freedom Fighters" [Slate]

RELATED
"Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" [Library of Congress] (look at Section 5 on page 5)
(Photo: Getty)

Verizon tries to tell you can only link to its front page, and you can't link if you say mean things about them. They also think they can specify how the link is formatted, and that you can't hyperlink an image to their website.

"IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE WEBSITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, THEN YOU MAY NOT USE THIS SITE," says the top of the website terms and conditions.

Uh oh, we're about to link to a page within the site itself, here it comes... — BEN POPKEN

Website Use Terms and Conditions [VerizonWireless via Harry Maugans]
PREVIOUSLY: Cingular Thinks It Can Sue You For Linking To Its Website

Cingular, whatever you're paying these guys, it's not enough! They need some more money so they can finish the rest of their law degree by mail courses. — BEN POPKENBe Careful How You Link To Cingular.com [Harry Maugans]

Inane end-user-license agreements and waivers such as these are put in the stockades on a new blog, The Small Print Project. The blog is run by Cory Doctorow student Andy Sternberg, the a Master's Candidate at USC's Online Journalism program.

As might be expected, The Small Print Project is more about crippleware and not so much about signing your life over in waiver form when you go horseback riding.

Cory tells us Andy is, "...collecting readers' horror stories about end-user license agreements and terms of service, creating a deep public record of an abusive practice that's metastasizing."

The site welcomes your submissions.

The Small Print Project

Has PayPal shut your account down without warning? Have they charged your credit cards without permission? Have they never refunded your money for eBay items that you never received? All the while justifying their actions behind a cryptic, multi-page TOS agreement?

Well, good news! PayPal's still going to do all of that. But thanks to legal action brought against PayPal by 28 states, it'll at least have to present it's Terms of Service in a less convoluted manner.

According to PayPal's agreement, critical information about financial transactions will no longer be hidden in a labyrinth of hyperlinks. Instead, they will be hidden in excess lawyerly verbiage, as densely packed and impenetrable as superstrings. Consumers win!

PayPal Settles Customer Service Complaints [Consumer Affairs]

We won't judge N. too much for typing anything as silly as "((Hugs))" to begin with. We've all been 12 year old girls at one point... Ben, in particular. Anyway, she's the victim, slapped with a stern rebuke from AOL in the form of a Terms of Service notification.

N. invokes the constitution: "I find nowhere in the Constitution or among any state or federal law which says that it is illegal to give friends a hug." Salient.

But more salient is this point: " I am appalled and absolutely astounded that AOL would consider this a "room disruption" because someone was ignored for this very reason...the person enjoys starting trouble. To be told that because I admitted to giving hugs, that this TOS will remain as a black mark on my account is truly astounding. I PAY to come on here, I PAY to have the right to greet friends, etc."

AOL's black mark after the jump:

Dear Member,

America Online has been notified of a Terms of Service (TOS) violation in an AOL chat room committed by one of the screen names on your account. A written warning has been entered in your account record along with the information below.

On 07/28/06 20:05:56 Eastern the [Removed] screen name violated the TOS in the Milly Lounge chat room. The following is an excerpt from the chat room discussion:

[Removed]: ((Tracey)) ((Maureen)) ((Laine)) ((Peter)) ((Allie)) ((Gina)) ((Theresa)) ((Steve)) ((Colleen)) ((Bob)) ((Shar)) ((Bev)) ((Tim)) ((Linda)) ((JoAnn)) ((Gordie)) ((Vicki)) ((Marti))

When creating an AOL account, all members agree to abide by America Online`s TOS. These guidelines prohibit vulgar language, sexually explicit images, harassment, discussion of illegal activities, and/or other activities that may impair the enjoyment of our members.

Please take a moment to be sure all users of this account are familiar with Keyword: TOS. To learn more about how to protect your AOL account, we recommend you visit Keywords: Neighborhood Watch and Parental Controls.

If you have any comments or questions, please send e-mail to TOSGeneral.

Regards,

Grace
Community Action Team
America Online, Inc.

In the interest of being fair, it should be noted that a long string of names surrounded by a thousand parentheses violates my own personal Terms of Service of Non-Maudlin, Adult Conduct.