Can a website terms and conditions change bind: (1) new users immediately, (2) existing users after a contractual notice period?
<p>Assume that my website offers a service requiring registration and payment - i.e. the service is NOT available by just typing the website address in the browser. Considering this service, I'm wondering if it's fine to update my website T&amp;Cs with:</p>
<ul>
<li>immediate effect for new users;</li>
<li>30 day delay for existing users (as stipulated in T&amp;Cs themselves).</li>
</ul>
<p>This would obviously create a period of time when some users are bound by version X and some users are bound by version X+1.</p>
<p><strong>I wonder if there are some (consumer?) laws that specifically prohibit such a duality.</strong></p>
<hr />
<p>Some reasons why this may be desirable:</p>
<ul>
<li>price increase for new users without delay;</li>
<li>giving access to new features for new users without delay.</li>
</ul>
<p>I also realize there are significant administrative disadvantages to managing this dual state while it lasts.</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Edit:</strong></p>
<p>A (very helpful) answer raised doubt about changing the T&amp;Cs for existing users after the notice period. I should have mentioned: existing users have the option to refuse the change, which would terminate the contract, again, as stipulated in the T&amp;Cs themselves. As far as I'm aware this approach (if existing users refuse, end of contract) is universal for online services. Though this is not the focus of my question: the focus is the legality of the temporary dual state, where some users are on T&amp;Cs version X, and some are on T&amp;Cs version X+1.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Can a website terms and conditions change bind: (1) new users immediately, (2) existing users after a contractual notice period?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It can bind new users immediately. The matter is more uncertain and/or complex in regard to existing users because, <em>inter alia</em>, a party's unilateral and belated imposition of new terms contravenes a tenet of contract law that the parties enter the terms of an agreement [willfully and] <em>knowingly</em>.</p>
<p>With respect to existing users, what you outline is an amendment of contract. All parties to a contract have to agree to an amendment. Otherwise the amendment is not binding. This means that you would have to maintain the old version of your service for as long as a contract with an existing user is in place. If existing users reject the amendment and decline to rescind/void the contract or terminate it early, there is little or nothing you can do (i.e., other than continue performing the contract) lest you opt for [an actionable] breach of contract.</p>
<p>Contract law typically leaves room for exceptions on the ground that it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so. Your description is too generic for us to assess whether that would be the case here, though.</p>

contract-law terms-of-service