The “Browsewrap”/”Clickwrap” Distinction Is Falling Apart

29 06 2015

It is somewhat surprising that, in 2015, courts are still hashing out online consumer contract formation issues. After all, the seminal case, Specht v. Netscape, was decided over a dozen years ago. Yet, a few recent cases show that companies often don’t get the contracting process right. In all or most of these cases, the companies are trying to push the disputes into arbitration (on an individual, rather than a class-wide basis). So the result of a flawed contract formation often means that a company has to litigate a claim in court rather than a more convenient and less expensive forum.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/02/the-browsewrapclickwrap-distinction-is-falling-apart.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Court Rejects Bizarre Attempt To Scrub Consumer Review–Goren v. Ripoff Report

29 06 2015
I previously blogged about this matter (see also Venkat’s update). A Massachusetts attorney, Goren, was unhappy about a user review of his law firm posted to Ripoff Report, which is well-known for not removing user posts. The plaintiffs sued the user for defamation in state court; the user no-showed. The plaintiffs got a default judgment and convinced the judge to assign the author’s copyright as part of the relief. The plaintiffs then turned around and sued Ripoff Report for copyright infringement for continuing to publish the review. Although this particular method of getting a review’s copyright via a default judgment was novel, copyright-based workarounds to Section 230 are well-known and usually problematic. This week, the court rejected the lawsuit.

 

Case citation: Small Justice v. Xcentric Ventures, 1:13-cv-11701-DJC (D. Mass. March 27, 2015)

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/atom.xmlhttp://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/03/court-rejects-bizarre-attempt-to-scrub-consumer-review-goren-v-ripoff-report.htm moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.


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.