Law student pede, that's why I asked for the TOS. I think 1.2.1-2 is more akin to Title VII claims, like protected classes. So, for instance, a company cannot use mapbox to identify black or Hispanic people, women, handicapped people, etc. Political party is not protected under Title VII.
However, 1.2.4 is more promising: "operate a product or service where the use or failure of the Services could lead to death, personal injury or significant property or environmental damage." With the riots and targeting of Trump supporters in public and at their homes, I think this is a better argument
(edit) I would preface the "better argument" statement by saying that someone needs to use the service to carry out some attack on a person or their property first. A claim in the abstract is no good in courts, unfortunately
Law student pede, that's why I asked for the TOS. I think 1.2.1-2 is more akin to Title VII claims, like protected classes. So, for instance, a company cannot use mapbox to identify black or Hispanic people, women, handicapped people, etc. Political party is not protected under Title VII.
However, 1.2.4 is more promising: "operate a product or service where the use or failure of the Services could lead to death, personal injury or significant property or environmental damage." With the riots and targeting of Trump supporters in public and at their homes, I think this is a better argument
(edit) I would preface the "better argument" statement by saying that someone needs to use the service to carry out some attack on a person or their property. A claim in the abstract is no good in courts, unfortunately
Law student pede, that's why I asked for the TOS. I think 1.2.1-2 is more akin to Title VII claims, like protected classes. So, for instance, a company cannot use mapbox to identify black or Hispanic people, women, handicapped people, etc. Political party is not protected under Title VII.
However, 1.2.4 is more promising: "operate a product or service where the use or failure of the Services could lead to death, personal injury or significant property or environmental damage." With the riots and targeting of Trump supporters in public and at their homes, I think this is a better argument
edit I would preface the "better argument" statement by saying that someone needs to use the service to carry out some attack on a person or their property. A claim in the abstract is no good in courts, unfortunately