Precisazione utile (anche se scontata) da US South., Dist. C. of NY 6 dicembre 2023, Case 1:22-cv-05341-KPF , Thomas v. Twitter , appresa dal blog di Eric Goldman che ne dà pure il link.
Il fatto che Twitter, dopo aver sospeso l’account, dia un link per downloadare il materiale postatovi, non fa venir meno l’assenza di ogni suo obbligo in tale senso (consacrata in base ad apposita clausola).
Per cui se il link non funziona, l’utente nulla può eccepire.
<<AOn the facts before it, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has a plausible claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The agreement between Twitter and Plaintiff is embodied in Twitter’s Terms of Service (the “Terms”), to which Plaintiff agreed to abide by when he created his account. (See Def. Br. 1-2).8 Importantly, the Terms clearly disclaim any responsibility for Twitter’s failure to store or transmit content. (See id. at 8). A reasonable user, therefore, would contemplate the possibility of one’s tweets, for whatever reason, becoming inaccessible; nowhere do the Terms suggest an intention on Twitter’s part to retain all users’ data for transmission to them anywhere, at any time, and in any format. Further, Twitter’s efforts to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his Twitter archive (even if unsuccessful) evince significant good faith. (See id. at 3 n.6 (“Twitter has provided Plaintiff a copy of his archive twice — once, before Plaintiff sued; and a second time in December 2022, in a voluntary (but unsuccessful) effort to resolve this matter without further litigation.”)). Thus, even when construed as legally cognizable, Plaintiff’s third claim must be dismissed>>.
In effetti se la clausola c’è, l’invio del link è solo graziosa concessione, non interpretabile come tacita rinuncia alla clausola stessa.