38
In contrast, individual consumers, by and large, do not make rational
decisions with regards to entering in to contracts with cloud service providers. Research suggests that they do not read the terms and conditions in
advance of using cloud services, and if they do, this does not change their
decision. In this way, their decisions may be non-calculative and habitual,
or reflect a perceived lack of options and/or a desire to avoid anxiety. At
the same time, this is not their problem in one sense, but a regulatory one.
There has been much progress to correct imbalances in contractual terms
in consumer cloud computing, not least the GDPR. Unfortunately, regulatory responses are not uniform worldwide. Borderless technologies such as
cloud computing provide significant challenges particularly in a highly globalised world. The rejuvenation of the doctrine of unconscionability as
proposed by Calloway (2012) may be worthy of consideration, particularly
in the US, the choice of law for so many cloud service providers.
Evolutions in cloud computing are overcoming the sources of legal friction between demand and supply. Containerisation and serverless computing introduce a separate of concerns that institutionalise a trust
compartmentalisation of sorts in line with Lumineau (2017). At the same
time, heterogeneity, AIOps, and the Internet of Things, further complicate
the relationship between supply and demand, accountability and assurance,
and as a result, trust and distrust. Innovations in contracts, whether intellectual or smart, remain at an early stage of conceptualisation. Indeed, it is
unclear whether they are enforceable and can be adapted in to a legal infrastructure designed around traditional notions of tangible intellectual property and, even so, whether lawmakers will consider it necessary at all.
2.7 cases
Caspi v. Microsoft Network LLC, 732 A.2d 528 (N.J. Super. 1999)
Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximilian
Schrems (Case C-311/18)
El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH Case [2015]
EUECJ C-322/14
Gas Holdings Limited v Accenture (UK) Limited and others [2010]
EWCA Civ 912
Rudder v Microsoft Corp [1999] OJ No 3778 (Sup Ct J)
Ryanair dac v SC Vola.ro srl [2019] IEHC 239
Treiber & Straub, Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 04-C-0069, 2005
WL2108081 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 31, 2005).
T. LYNN
In contrast, individual consumers, by and large, do not make rational
decisions with regards to entering in to contracts with cloud service providers. Research suggests that they do not read the terms and conditions in
advance of using cloud services, and if they do, this does not change their
decision. In this way, their decisions may be non-calculative and habitual,
or reflect a perceived lack of options and/or a desire to avoid anxiety. At
the same time, this is not their problem in one sense, but a regulatory one.
There has been much progress to correct imbalances in contractual terms
in consumer cloud computing, not least the GDPR. Unfortunately, regulatory responses are not uniform worldwide. Borderless technologies such as
cloud computing provide significant challenges particularly in a highly globalised world. The rejuvenation of the doctrine of unconscionability as
proposed by Calloway (2012) may be worthy of consideration, particularly
in the US, the choice of law for so many cloud service providers.
Evolutions in cloud computing are overcoming the sources of legal friction between demand and supply. Containerisation and serverless computing introduce a separate of concerns that institutionalise a trust
compartmentalisation of sorts in line with Lumineau (2017). At the same
time, heterogeneity, AIOps, and the Internet of Things, further complicate
the relationship between supply and demand, accountability and assurance,
and as a result, trust and distrust. Innovations in contracts, whether intellectual or smart, remain at an early stage of conceptualisation. Indeed, it is
unclear whether they are enforceable and can be adapted in to a legal infrastructure designed around traditional notions of tangible intellectual property and, even so, whether lawmakers will consider it necessary at all.
2.7 cases
Caspi v. Microsoft Network LLC, 732 A.2d 528 (N.J. Super. 1999)
Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximilian
Schrems (Case C-311/18)
El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH Case [2015]
EUECJ C-322/14
Gas Holdings Limited v Accenture (UK) Limited and others [2010]
EWCA Civ 912
Rudder v Microsoft Corp [1999] OJ No 3778 (Sup Ct J)
Ryanair dac v SC Vola.ro srl [2019] IEHC 239
Treiber & Straub, Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 04-C-0069, 2005
WL2108081 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 31, 2005).
T. LYNN