Have you ever clicked on a box saying "I have read and accept the Terms and Conditions'' without actually reading them?
If so, you are a long way from being alone. Two academics, Jonathan Obar, of York University, and Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch, of the University of Connecticut, set up a recent experiment to test that very premise. The experiment involved researchers setting up a fictitious social media site called "NameDrop''. They found that 74% of users opted to "quick join'' without reading the policy small print. They dropped in a Herod clause, which 98% of users missed. The study also found that yet another clause about user data being shared with the NSA and employers also went unnoticed.
What is a Herod clause? It is a clause buried deep in the small print that obligates the signatory to a condition they would find impossible to accept had they actually read and been aware of it. Often, it is an agreement to give up their first-born child (hence the Herod Biblical reference). It is usually put in a contract to test if the contract has actually been read. In this case it was used by the study authors to test the potential apathy and disinterest of those signing the contract.
In a similar if smaller scale test conducted in London, people unwittingly agreed to give up their eldest child during an experiment exploring the dangers of public Wi-Fi use. European law enforcement agency Europol supported the experiment, which involved a group of security researchers setting up a Wi-Fi hot spot. When people connected to the hot spot, the terms and conditions they were asked to sign up to included a "Herod clause'' promising free Wi-Fi but only if "the recipient agreed to assign their first-born child to us for the duration of eternity''.
People signed up, showing they had not read the small print. This is a serious matter, for while a "Herod'' child giveaway clause could not be enforced in law, the small print could involve people signing away data they would rather keep private: i.e. names, addresses, passwords etc.
Why do people avoid reading through terms and conditions (T&C)? The length of such T&C portions of agreements is certainly prohibitive. I recently read through the posted T&Cs pertaining to parking in a city centre supermarket car park. It took close to 15 minutes to read through all the clauses and I just wanted to grab a carton of milk! Also the legal jargon used would only appeal to the literary masochistic.
Furthermore, I would propose that it is a lack of choice that informs the decision to avoid the read-through. It is not as if the customer can come back and say, well I'd like clause 8 removed and the wording changed on clause 11. It is a take it or leave it situation; if we want the service or product we must sign up to the T&Cs; we have no option regardless of what they say. We also assume such contract provisions are basically all the same, so no point in reading another one.
Companies are not really worried that small print in contracts does not top the best read lists. After all, most of the clauses are not positives for the customer and would not help a marketer sell the product or service. Even the term "contract'' has somehow morphed into the term 'plan' as a plan sounds much more positive than contract and plays better into the marketer's hands. Yet they are just two different words for the same thing. "Mum, I've got a new phone plan'' has a better ring than "Mum, I've just signed up to a new phone contract''.
We can now sign up to insurance policies and loans in minutes on the phone (even while out fishing if the ad is to be believed). We are led to believe this is all for us, to make it easier for you and I. What should be remembered is it is all just easier for companies, as you are still bound by rigid small print even if you phone or mouse click around them.
Ian Loughran is a Dunedin-based poet, writer, broadcaster and performer.
