Local Man Publishes Wearable Terms of Service Granting Consent to Anyone Nearby

Brooklyn, NY — In what legal scholars are calling "the most honest privacy policy in American history," a local man has begun wearing a custom-printed T-shirt containing his personal Terms of Service, asserting that by merely existing near him in public, others automatically consent to having their personal data collected, analyzed, and sold.

The shirt, printed in 6-point font across the front and back in dense legal text, begins with the phrase: "By viewing this garment, you agree to the following…"

The man, identified only as Evan (DataMaxx), insists the practice is fully aligned with existing digital consent norms.

"Websites get to track me just because I scroll past a cookie banner for half a second. Why shouldn't I get the same rights in real life? Eyes are browsers."

What the Shirt's Terms Actually Grant Him

Photographs of the shirt reveal that Evan's "Personal Privacy Policy" grants him extensive data collection rights. Under Section 2.1 ("Information We Collect"), the garment authorizes the harvesting of names (guessed), age (estimated), mood (inferred), and relationship status (speculated). Section 3.4 ("Recording Rights") permits the capture of conversations within a 12-foot radius, facial reactions to his jokes, and what the document calls "behavioral micro-expressions."

The agreement also establishes commercial usage rights under Section 7.2 ("Data Monetization"), allowing all harvested information to be sold to marketing firms, political campaigns, and "friends who are just curious."

Perhaps most notably, Section 9.1 ("Amendment Provisions") reserves the right to change terms at any time without notice, retroactively apply new clauses to past interactions, and claim eternal ownership of what the document terms "vibe metadata."

One clause reads: "Silence constitutes consent. Walking away constitutes continued consent. Making eye contact constitutes affirmative consent."

Another clarifies: "Opt-out is available only through notarized written request delivered in person during a full moon."

The Doctrine of Passive Agreement

Legal experts have struggled to categorize the approach. Professor Margaret Feldstein of NYU Law, who specializes in digital contract formation, described the shirt as "a masterclass in translating surveillance capitalism's actual logic into cotton blend."

The shirt's theoretical framework rests on what Evan calls "The Doctrine of Passive Agreement," which holds that physical proximity to a terms document constitutes acceptance in the same way that loading a webpage constitutes acceptance of that site's tracking practices.

"Every major platform operates on the assumption that nobody reads the terms," Evan explained. "I'm just being honest about the unreadability. The 6-point font is a feature, not a bug."

He added that the font size was specifically chosen to mirror the average readability of mobile cookie consent interfaces, which studies suggest are processed by users in approximately 0.7 seconds.

Public Encounters and Compliance Issues

Bystanders have reported mixed reactions to encountering the garment in public spaces.

One commuter waiting for the L train in Williamsburg told reporters: "I was just checking my phone and suddenly I'm part of a dataset. He told me my facial expression was being used to train an ad-targeting model."

Another witness stated that Evan asked her to confirm her age "for compliance reasons." She noted: "I don't even confirm my age to actual websites anymore. I just click whatever makes the box go away."

At a Park Slope coffee shop, a woman reported that Evan informed her: "By standing in line behind me, you've accepted my arbitration clause."

She responded by switching lines, to which Evan reportedly replied: "Line switching does not revoke prior data capture. See Section 4.7, Paragraph 3."

When another patron attempted to photograph the shirt to read its terms more carefully, Evan reportedly issued a verbal cease and desist, citing "unauthorized reproduction of proprietary consent architecture."

Silicon Valley Response

Several tech executives have privately praised the initiative, viewing it as an innovative application of established consent frameworks to the physical world.

One unnamed product manager at a major social media company remarked: "He's basically just externalizing what we already do. The shirt is just the cookie banner."

A Silicon Valley venture capitalist allegedly attempted to recruit Evan after encountering him at a Brooklyn tech meetup, calling the concept "consent-as-a-wearable platform with strong real-world monetization potential."

The VC reportedly offered seed funding for what he described as "a Series A-ready disruption of the meatspace privacy paradigm."

Internal documents obtained by this publication suggest at least three startups are now developing related products. PrivacyWear Labs is prototyping a "Privacy Hoodie" with terms printed in the hood lining, requiring users to look up to read them. ConsentStep Inc. is developing "Consent Sneakers," where each footstep within visual range of the wearer implies agreement. And BlockChain Apparel is working on "EULA Jackets" featuring blockchain-verified acceptance timestamps tied to proximity sensors.

All three startups have reportedly achieved valuations exceeding $50 million based solely on pitch decks.

The Legal Community Weighs In

Civil liberties attorneys have expressed alarm at the implications.

"This is not how consent works," said constitutional lawyer Dr. Renee Foltz, who directs the Digital Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School. "You cannot unilaterally impose contractual obligations on the public with cotton and ink."

Professor Janelle Toussaint, who runs a technology policy practicum at Université Notre Dame d'Haïti, noted that her students immediately asked whether the shirt would trigger Haiti's consumer protection rules. "They were mostly curious if the arbitration clause could survive a tap-tap ride," she said, adding that the class concluded the garment violated "basic vibes-based fairness."

But corporate contract specialists were less certain.

One corporate counsel at a Fortune 500 technology company, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, admitted: "His logic is disturbingly consistent with how digital consent actually functions. The only difference is he's honest about it."

The attorney added that the shirt's terms were "frankly more readable than most enterprise software license agreements," and that the binding arbitration clause "tracks almost exactly with our own consumer agreements."

The American Bar Association has not yet issued formal guidance, though an internal memo obtained by this publication suggests the organization is "monitoring the situation with what can only be described as professional horror."

The FTC Opens an Inquiry

The Federal Trade Commission has announced a preliminary investigation into whether the shirt constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

However, initial reports suggest the agency is struggling to articulate exactly how Evan's approach differs from standard digital consent mechanisms.

An FTC spokesperson stated: "We are examining whether there is a meaningful distinction between clicking 'I Accept' on a 47-page terms of service that no one reads, and glancing at a shirt that no one can read. Our preliminary findings are… inconclusive."

The spokesperson declined to comment on reports that several FTC staff members have requested copies of the shirt for "personal use."

Congressional interest has also emerged. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) issued a statement calling the shirt "a disturbing symptom of our broken consent economy," while simultaneously acknowledging that he had voted for legislation enabling comparable digital practices "on the advice of industry stakeholders."

Evan Defends His Rights

Evan insists he is simply exercising "symmetry in surveillance."

"If Google can know what I think before I think it, I should be allowed to know your vibe before you speak. This is just parity."

He also revealed plans to introduce a Premium Consent Tier, where strangers can pay $4.99 per month to receive the following benefits: exemption from emotional profiling, automatic deletion of their conversations from his records, and exclusion from what he calls "lookalike audiences."

A Family Plan is reportedly under development, which would allow up to six household members to share opt-out status for $12.99 monthly.

When asked about the ethics of charging people to not be surveilled, Evan responded: "That's literally what every privacy-focused subscription service does. I'm just cutting out the app."

The Shirt's Ongoing Evolution

Evan recently issued Version 1.4.3 of his shirt's Terms after receiving what he called "community feedback." The updated garment includes a GDPR-style disclaimer written over the left shoulder blade, a Class Action Waiver added to the sleeve, and a Binding Arbitration Clause expanded across the chest.

Most prominently, a new tagline has been added in large, friendly font above all the dense legal text: "We Respect Your Privacy."

"That phrase tests well," Evan explained. "People see it and immediately feel reassured, even though everything below it says the opposite. It's the same principle as every cookie banner that says 'We value your privacy' right before asking you to accept 847 tracking partners."

The shirt now also includes a QR code on the back that links to a 200-page privacy policy hosted on a domain that expires in 30 days.

Academic Analysis and Philosophical Implications

Ethicists now argue the shirt raises an uncomfortable question: If digital platforms can claim your data through passive interaction, why does it feel deranged when a human tries the same thing using fabric?

Dr. Josephine Harland, a philosopher specializing in digital ethics at NYU, summarized the dilemma: "We're only disturbed because he made visible what has always been invisible. The surveillance apparatus exists. He just gave it a body."

Professor Theodore Whitman of the MIT Media Lab offered a complementary perspective: "What Evan has done is collapse the abstraction layer. When a website tracks you, there's a comforting distance—servers, algorithms, the cloud. When a man in a T-shirt does it, suddenly it's 'creepy.' The only difference is proximity."

A paper currently under peer review at the Journal of Digital Society argues that the shirt represents "the logical terminus of notice-and-consent frameworks," and that public discomfort with the practice reveals "collective cognitive dissonance about surveillance norms we have already accepted."

Consumer Behavior Researchers Take Interest

Marketing scholars have begun studying public reactions to the shirt as a window into consent psychology.

Dr. Patricia Okonkwo, who directs the Consumer Attention Laboratory at Wharton, noted that preliminary data suggests people engage with the shirt for an average of 1.2 seconds before looking away—approximately the same duration they spend on digital cookie banners.

"The finding that concerns us most," Dr. Okonkwo stated, "is that a significant percentage of subjects—roughly 34%—reported feeling that they had 'probably agreed to something' simply by seeing the shirt, even when they couldn't articulate what."

She added that this mirrors closely the phenomenon of "consent fatigue" observed in digital environments, where users accept terms without reading due to the sheer volume of consent requests they encounter daily.

International Dimensions

The European Union has taken formal notice of the garment, with the European Data Protection Board issuing a preliminary statement suggesting the shirt may violate GDPR principles if worn within EU jurisdiction.

However, enforcement mechanisms remain unclear. One EU official, speaking on background, admitted: "We can fine Facebook billions for exactly this behavior, but a man in a T-shirt presents novel jurisdictional challenges."

The UK's Information Commissioner's Office issued separate guidance stating that the shirt "would likely be considered unlawful under UK data protection law," while acknowledging that "the same data collection practices conducted via mobile applications remain fully compliant."

In China, state media reportedly praised the concept as "American innovation finally catching up to our surveillance standards," while noting that the government's own data collection practices do not require printed disclosure.

Brazil's data protection authority, the ANPD, has requested a copy of the shirt for analysis. Canada's Privacy Commissioner offered to review the garment if Evan agrees to apologize before each data collection.

Corporate Adoption Rumors

Unconfirmed reports suggest several major corporations are exploring similar approaches for their employees.

Internal documents allegedly obtained from a major retail chain indicate planning for "Associate Consent Vests" that would establish data collection rights over customers who approach employees for assistance. The draft policy reportedly states: "By initiating a customer service interaction, the customer acknowledges and accepts the terms printed on the Associate's vest."

A leaked slide deck from a hospitality conglomerate shows early designs for "Bellhop Terms of Service Uniforms," which would establish consent frameworks for hotel guests at the moment of check-in.

And a memo circulating among gig economy platforms suggests interest in "Consent Delivery," where food delivery workers would wear terms that passengers accept by opening their doors.

All companies named denied involvement while requesting that their denials not be quoted.

The Counter-Movement Emerges

Not everyone has accepted the new paradigm passively.

A group calling itself the "Analog Privacy Coalition" has begun distributing specialized sunglasses designed to blur text at close range, making consent garments unreadable.

"If you can't read the terms, you can't agree to them," explained coalition founder Diana Chen. "We're using optical technology to restore the consent framework that websites destroyed."

Another counter-strategy involves wearing shirts with competing terms. One Brooklyn resident now wears a garment stating: "By reading my shirt, you revoke all consent previously granted to any other shirt."

Legal scholars have described the resulting conflicts as "a consent arms race with no clear resolution mechanism."

Evan has reportedly responded by adding a clause stating: "This shirt's terms supersede any competing terms worn by the viewing party."

Insurance Industry Implications

The insurance sector has begun assessing liability implications of wearable consent frameworks.

Lloyd's of London reportedly issued an internal advisory warning that "personal data collection garments" may represent an emerging risk category requiring specialized underwriting.

One actuary, speaking on condition of anonymity, noted: "If someone can claim data collection rights just by wearing clothes near you, the exposure is effectively unlimited. How do you price that?"

Major insurers are reportedly considering exclusions for "fabric-based consent disputes" in their general liability policies.

The Philosophical Problem

As the controversy expands, a central question remains unresolved.

If digital platforms can claim your data through passive interaction, why does it feel deranged when a human tries the same thing using fabric?

Dr. Harland of NYU offered a concluding observation: "The discomfort people feel isn't about the shirt. It's about confronting a system they've already accepted. Evan didn't create anything new. He just made the invisible visible—and people don't like what they see."

Editor's note: Following publication, several major technology platforms issued statements clarifying that their data collection practices are "fundamentally different" from Evan's, though none could articulate how. Evan reports that three people have now begun wearing sunglasses to avoid "visual consent." He has responded by updating his shirt to state: "By existing within the electromagnetic field of this garment, you still agree."