Court Rules That Kids Can Be Bound By Facebook’s Member Agreement

17 12 2014

The status of kids’ ability to form contracts via online terms of service was somewhat uncertain over the last several years, with a few Facebook-related rulings raising questions. A group of minor plaintiffs who opted out of the Fraley v. Facebook Sponsored Stories settlement brought suit for violation of their publicity rights under an Illinois statute.

A recent ruling shuts out their claims, and gives some clarity to the online contracting landscape for minors.

The key question in front of Judge Seeborg was whether the contract at issue between minors and Facebook — essentially granting a publicity rights release –- was one of the narrow types of contracts with minors that were void, or if the contract was merely voidable under California Family Code 6701, et seq. Section 6701 sets forth certain exceptions to the general rule of contract voidability for minors—i.e., a minor cannot:

more

 

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/04/court-rules-that-kids-can-be-bound-by-facebooks-member-agreement.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Email Harvesting: Repeated Emails From LinkedIn May Violate Publicity Rights

15 12 2014

This is a lawsuit alleging that LinkedIn improperly mined users’ contact lists and sent them repeated invitation emails. While Judge Koh eliminated the Stored Communications Act and California anti-hacking statute claims, a chunk of the lawsuit remains. Harvesting contact lists remains a risky business. (See also Path.)

Case citation: Perkins v. LinkedIn, 13-CV-04303-LHK (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2014)

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/06/email-harvesting-repeated-emails-from-linkedin-may-violate-publicity-rights.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



How To Get Your Clickthrough Agreement Enforced In Court–Moretti v. Hertz

9 12 2014

 

So, by now, you know that if you want an enforceable online agreement, you need to implement it as a mandatory clickthrough. With that settled, it’s time to address an advanced topic: what evidence can you offer a judge to uphold your clickthrough when plaintiffs challenge the mechanical aspects of its implementation?

Case citation: Moretti v. Hertz Corporation, 2014 WL 1410432 (N.D. Cal April 11, 2014)

Related posts:

* Court Rules That Kids Can Be Bound By Facebook’s Member Agreement
* Court Blesses Instagram’s Right to Unilaterally Amend Its User Agreement–Rodriguez v. Instagram
* Effort to Game Website User Agreement Rules Fails -– Traton News v. Traton Corp.
* JDate Member Agreement Upheld–Zaltz v. JDate (Forbes Cross-Post)
* How Zappos’ User Agreement Failed In Court and Left Zappos Legally Naked (Forbes Cross-Post)
* Barnes & Noble’s Online Contract Formation Process Fails –Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble
* Court Disregards Check-the-Box Agreement and Doesn’t Enforce Venue Clause — Dunstan v. comScore
* Forum Selection Clause in “Submerged” Terms of Service Presumptively Unenforceable — Hoffman v. Supplements Togo
* Second Circuit Says Arbitration Clause in Terms Emailed After-the-Fact Not Enforceable – Schnabel v. Trilegiant
* Clickthrough Agreement With Acknowledgement Checkbox Enforced–Scherillo v. Dun & Bradstreet
* Contract Formed Even If Customer Never Received It–Schwartz v. Comcast

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/04/how-to-get-your-clickthrough-agreement-enforced-in-court-moretti-v-hertz.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



23andMe’s Browsewrap Fails, But Its Post-Purchase Clickthrough Works Anyway–Tompkins v. 23andMe

8 12 2014

You may recall 23andMe’s legal troubles last Fall, when the FDA launched a big smackdown over selling genetic tests. In the wake of the FDA takedown, the class action lawyers moved in for their cash grab. 23andMe defended with an arbitration clause, but there’s a big problem: 23andMe didn’t display any T&Cs when the consumer purchased its product. So how did 23andMe successfully move this case into arbitration despite its jaw-dropping gaffe? Read on…

Case citation: Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc., 2014 WL 2903752 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2014)

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/07/23andmes-browsewrap-fails-but-its-post-purchase-clickthrough-works-anyway-tompkins-v-23andme.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Fair Use Likely Protects Discussion of Blog Post and Comments

2 12 2014

This is a lawsuit between pro se parties. As the court notes, the feud between the parties largely took place online, but eventually “found its way into federal court”. Plaintiff is the publisher the “Hogewash!” blog.

Defendant is a “retired writer” who publishes several books and maintains websites, including patriot-ombudsman.com. Plaintiff generally wrote the content for the blog, but he also acquired content from third parties, including a particular blog post authored by a pseudonymous writer identified as “Paul Krendler” (which previously appeared in thingsmanszombie.wordpress.com). Plaintiff’s blog allowed comments and were subject to a terms of use:. . .

The parties exchanged numerous claims between them. This particular ruling addresses only plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief for his copyright claims.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/08/fair-use-likely-protects-discussion-of-blog-post-and-comments.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.