So if you are a licensee of a software service or product, which you use internally or you sell (sub-license) to end users, you’ll want to be sure that there is no interruption in service for the term of the license provided you pay the license fees. Interruptions in access to the software can come in many forms, sometimes the licensor has issues with the software or its delivery (such as hosting provider’s downtime), and sometimes the licensor is acquired by a larger company that doesn’t pay as much attention to the particular software, or worse, the licensor has financial troubles and either ceases to operate as a going concern or files bankruptcy. You as a licensee, who needs the software to keep your operations steady or to keep your stream of revenue uninterrupted, will want to ensure that there is no break in the access to the software. Read more
We’ll be looking at the typical items addressed in a business to business software license agreement (as compared to an end user license agreement). The purpose of a software license between two companies are generally for the licensor, who has valuable software, to set forth how that software may be used by a licensee and the compensation and other items applicable to the licensee’s use. Read more
Ricardian Contracts are really a stepping stone to Smart Contracts. They are a way to link a contract to another system, typically an accounting system. Ian Grigg came up with the Ricardian Contracts some time ago. He first published about it in Financial Cryptography in 7 Layers in 1998. Ricardian Contracts were initially used for Ricardo (hence their name), a bond platform.
They are a melding of a traditional contract with a contract that can be read and executed by machines. A Ricardian Contract can be defined as a single document that:
- is a contract offered by an issuer of some item of value (think of a bond, coin, token, currency, etc.) to a holder of such item;
- for a valuable right held by the holder, to be managed by the issuer;
- can be read in plain language by humans (so like a normal contract);
- can be read by programs (and is parsable like a database);
- digitally signed;
- carries the keys and server information; and
- is allied with a unique and secure identifier.
When dealing with online contracting, blockchain, clickwrap agreements, smart contracts, or just generally these days (and certainly in the future), you will come across the terms “hash” and “encryption.” Especially when discussing digital signatures. We’ll try to distill these a bit for you. These are all regularly used in the transmittal of electronic information and verification of the information, the sender and/or receiver. Read more
- Hubbert v. Dell Corp., 2005 WL 1968774 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (court upheld arbitration clause in Dell’s for cause regarding alleged false claims made by Dell to online purchasers of the computers. Court found different colored hyperlinks on each page like a multipage contract).
- Hines v. Overstock.com, Inc., 668 F. Supp.2d 366 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (both arbitration and forum selection clause invalid due to no actual or constructive notice)
- Van Tassell v. United Mktg. Group, LLC, 795 F. Supp. 2d 770 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (holding arbitration provision was unenforceable where it was included website’s conditions of use but difficult to find, because users had to scroll all the way down home page, click on Customer Service link, then scroll down and click another link to find it).
- Friedman v. Guthy-Renker, LLC, 2015 US Dist LEXIS 24307 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2015) (where two plaintiffs clicked on checkbox that only referenced credit card terms prior to purchase, arbitration not binding; for plaintiff who clicked on checkbox which had a link to the terms the arbitration provision was binding)
In In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation, 185 F. Supp. 3d 1155, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60046, (N.D. Cal. 2016):
- A class action against Facebook was filed pursuant to the Illinois Biometric Informration Privacy Act (BIPA). Parties agreed to transfer case to N.D. California, but wanted Illinois law (and not CA law) to apply.
- Plaintiff’s alleged that facial and other recognition used by Facebook violated BIPA
- There were three plaintiffs at issue and court reviewed the sign up procedure for each (2005, 2008 and 2009).
- When Facebook updated its Terms it emailed a notice to all user’s email addresses and the next time each user logged on, they saw “jewel” notification in their personal newsfeed alerting to the change in such documents but no affirmative action was required by each user).BUT said the general and individualized notice was enough, that the agreement was effective, but that in the situation it would not apply CA law.
- The Court said that the notice provided by Facebook was enough to have a binding choice of law provision (seemed to like the “personalized” nature of the news feed notice).
- But the Court then still chose to apply IL law as opposed to CA.
In Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2012):
- Said “inquiry notice” turns on “design and content of the website and agreement’s webpage.”
- This case was followed by e.g., Long v. Provide Commerce, Inc. 245 Cal. App. 4th 855 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (refused to compel arbitration, stated that to put users on notice you need conspicuous hyperlink plus notice that it contains binding terms. A conspicuous notice alone is not enough).
In Jerez v. JD Closeouts, LLC, No. CV-024727-11, 2012 WL 934390 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 2012):
–The court held that a terms of sale provision found on the “About” page of the website was not enough to enforce the forum selection clause.
- Plaintiff ordered products ($6,000 worth of tube socks) over the Internet, and sued claiming there were defects.
- Seller moved to dismiss claiming the forum selection clause required the dispute be heard in a Florida state court, and Plaintiff claimed he never saw clause.
–Court found the clause was not reasonably communicated where it was “buried” and “submerged” on the website, and could only be found by clicking on an “inconspicuous” link to the company’s About Us page. Seller’s attempt to have the terms incorporated by reference in a printed contract and letter agreement were not enough for the court.
- Court relied on Specht and Carnival Cruise Lines.
–Similar holding in Cvent, Inc. v. Eventbrite, Inc., 739 F. Supp. 2d 927 (E.D. Va. 2010).
In Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6483 (C.D. CA., March 7, 2003):
–Relying on Register.com and Pollstar, the court held that a contract can be formed by use of a website, provided the user, at the time of use, has knowledge of the site’s terms and conditions that provide that such use constitutes an agreement to be bound.
- Court relied on “cruise ship” case law precedent. It analogized interior web pages to the back of a cruise ship ticket’s venue clause, where user has actual or presumptive knowledge.
–Court found that Tickets.com used Ticketmaster’s site with full knowledge of the terms, and upheld such terms in the breach of contract action.
In Pollstar v. Gigmania, Ltd., 170 F. Supp. 2d 974 (E.D. CA 2000):
–Pollstar kept track of concert information on its website, which any user could download by accepting the terms of Pollstar’s license.
»License prohibited commercial use of information.
»License was not on Pollstar’s homepage, but on different page of its site.
»Visitor is alerted to existence of Pollstar’s license only by reason of a small grey print on grey background (with a link to terms, but other links on homepage were blue)
–Gigmania downloaded information from Pollstar’s site and used it on its own site for commercial purposes. Pollstar sued to enforce terms.
–The court refused to enforce the terms of the license agreement because it found that the link to the license was hard to read based on the way it was presented.
- Notably, the court did not rule that the license agreement was unenforceable, only that the website did not give users adequate notice of it.