The legality of pseudonyms

[xenacryst]

There's a post and discussion here regarding the legal status of using pseudonyms and avatar identities to enter into contracts:

http://cityofnidus.blogspot.com/2011/07/google-and-future-of-avatar-identity.html

Shortly, it may be the case in the US (and possibly other countries with similar common law regarding name changes) that it is illegal to require the use of a "real" name in any sort of contract, as long as the pseudonym/avatar identity is not used with fraudulent intent.

I'm not up to thinking through legal machinations tonight, but I put this out here as a way of getting the word out and keeping conversation going. G+/FB/others may be skirting shaky legal ground with their ToS policies.

Comments

[silverhare]

I know this is very off-topic, but that is an awesome userpic.

[justhuman]

I seen this comment floating around and while it's good that pseudonyms are an accepted legal form of one's name, the conclusion that it may be "illegal to require them" is erroneous. One does not lead to the other.

Any group asking for a name can ask for it in any form that they want. There's nothing illegal about demanding that it match some form of legal ID. If a person refused to give a legal ID, than the group can simply refuse to provide service.

Which isn't to say that G+ is going about this right, just that there's nothing legal to force them to allow pseudonyms.

[xenacryst]

Hmm - you may be right, but my understanding of contract law is different (and admittedly incomplete). From what I gathered, it is illegal to enforce a contract that requires the use of a particular form of name because any from of name carries the same legal weight. If that's the case, then the question becomes one of whether agreeing to G+'s terms of service is equivalent to entering into a contract.