Category: Contracts

Browsewrap License Cases: Register.com v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004).

Contracts, Internet Law, Online Agreements

Below is a brief overview of Register.com v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004):

–Register.com sued Verio for violating the terms of use of its WHOIS database, which Verio used to get information on who registered domain names with Register.com to offer web services to the registrants.

  • As part of receiving the information from WHOIS, Register.com’s terms stated that the domain name registrant information, which consisted of email, phone number and mailing address, could not be used for marketing purposes. The terms of use were, however, proffered after the domain name registrant information was presented to the user of the WHOIS database.

–VERIO claimed there was no contract as it never agreed to the terms, and in any event any user of the WHOIS site could receive the information before seeing the terms.

  • The court said that this argument may only have worked if Verio used the WHOIS database once, but Verio did it every day with full knowledge of the terms.

–The Second Circuit held that Verio’s continued use of Register.com’s WHOIS database constituted consent to Verio’s terms of use, expressly  rejecting Verio’s argument that they were not enforceable because the user had not clicked an “I agree” icon.

 

Browsewrap License Cases: In re Zappos.com, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 893 F.Supp. 2d 1058 (Dist. Ct. Nevada 2012).

Contracts, Internet Law, Online Agreements

Here is a brief summary of the case In re Zappos.com, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 893 F.Supp. 2d 1058 (Dist. Ct. Nevada 2012):

–Users sued in multiple forums for damages due to a security breach.

  • Zappos filed a motion to compel arbitration in Las Vegas pursuant to its terms of use agreement, which was a typical browsewrap agreement which also gave Zappos the right to amend any of the terms as it saw fit.

–Zappos had a hyperlink on each page of its website to the terms but it was hard to see, being the same size and color as other insignificant links, and located ¾ of the way down the page.  The website never prompted or directed a user to the terms even when purchasing a product or opening an account.

–Court concluded that the plaintiffs may have never seen the terms, so in no way could be deemed to have actually or constructively agreed to them. No assent, no contract.

  • Sidenote: The Court also held the arbitration provision was an illusory contract (and therefore not enforceable) because Zappos was able to amend the Terms as it saw fit at any time. See Grosvenor v. Qwest Corp., 854 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (D. Colo. 2012) for this same holding.

M&A Deals: What is a “Cap” and a “Basket”?

Contracts, Mergers & Acquisitions

This is a follow up post on our series of merger and acquisition issues.  If you are selling your company you’ll be faced with the prospect of indemnifying the purchaser for any damages they suffer in connection with the sale.  Now such indemnification may arise for a number of reasons, such as an unknown debt or lien that was on an asset you sold, a claim that an employee or third party made against the company or an asset which you did not inform the purchaser of, or a number of other issues.  These are usually breaches of the representations and warranties that sellers have to make to the buyers in the asset purchase agreement.   For example, the seller will represent (i.e. state as true at the time of signing or closing or both) that there are no debts owed by the company or liens on the company assets.  If the deal closes and a lender or lien of the company did exist, its a breach of that representation, and the seller is liable to the buyer for any resulting damages. Read more

Using “Tested” or “Market” Contract Language

Contracts, Legal Musings, Uncategorized

This is a response to a post by Ken Adams of Adams on Drafting.   In one of my earlier posts about the desires of certain clients to have as short a contract as possible, I stated that it was beneficial to draft an agreement a certain way, including certain terms and language, because judges have seen similar items before. Ken identified this and he reiterated his position that a contract drafter should not rely on what he deems “tested” contract language. Read more

Clickwrap License Cases: Other/Misc

Contracts, Internet Law, Online Agreements
  • Starke v. Gilt Groupe, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58006 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (arbitration provision in clickwrap license, which had a link to the text of the license, was upheld, and found not to be unconscionable).
  • Motise v. America Online Inc., 346 F. Supp 2d 563 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (user that signed on with another user’s id and password still bound, as sub-licensee, of the terms including forum selection clause).
  • Hoffman v. Supplements Togo Management, LLC 18 A3d 210 (N. J. App. Div. 2011) (found forum selection clause unenforceable due “the manifestly unfair manner in which defendant’s website was structured” and court seemed to imply that it believed the website owner was intentionally hiding the terms).
  • Caspi v. Microsoft Network, LLC, 323 NJ Super 118 (N.J. App. Div. 1999) (upheld forum selection clause where users had to click on scrollable window and click “I agree” or “I don’t agree.”)
  • Mortgage Plus, Inc. v. DocMagic, Inc., 2004 WL 2331918, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20145 (D. Kan. 2004) (clickwrap agreement upheld)
  • Taxes of P.R., Inc. v. TaxWorks, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37765 (D.P.R. 2014) (upheld forum selection clause in clearly stated clickwrap agreement, following ProCD precedent).

Browsewrap License Cases: Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2nd Cir. 2002)

Contracts, Internet Law, Online Agreements

In Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2nd Cir. 2002), Users who downloaded certain software programs provided by Netscape filed a class action in federal court.  Netscape then moved for arbitration which was required as per the download terms. There were, however, multiple ways to download the Netscape programs, some of which required an affirmative assent and some of which did not require any assent to the terms of the license (case is about the latter).

The 2nd Circuit found that users could download and use the software without having to view the full terms of the contractual arrangement including the arbitration clause. The Court stated that a reasonably prudent consumer would not assent to contractual terms that were so inconspicuous that they could use the product while totally overlooking them. You had to scroll down and click on the terms to see them.

The Court said what is needed is “clarity and conspicuousness” to ensure the user is cognizant of the terms of the license (emphasis mine).  This is the phrase to keep in mind when clients are creating browsewrap and clickwrap agreements to bind users online.

Aside: Court seemed concerned that the Internet gives companies too many opportunities to exploit unsuspecting users. Simple rule is that if the user is not reasonably alerted to the contractual terms, she cannot assent to them.

Browsewrap License Cases: Fteja v. Facebook 2012 WL 183896 (SDNY 2012)

Contracts, Internet Law, Online Agreements

In Fteja v. Facebook  2012 WL 183896 (SDNY 2012), the Southern District of New York held that the forum selection clause in Facebook’s terms of service was enforceable against a site user.  The user sued Facebook in New York for terminating his account. He essentially claimed he was emotionally distraught over being kicked off of the site.  Facebook made a motion to remove the case to California pursuant to the forum selection clause in its Terms of Service.

Court found the Terms of Service was a hybrid clickwrap/browsewrap stating that it was “somewhat like a browsewrap agreement in that the terms are only visible via a hyperlink, but also somewhat like a clickwrap agreement in that the user must do something else — click ‘Sign Up’ — to assent to the hyperlinked terms. Yet, unlike some clickwrap agreements, the user can click to assent whether or not the user has been presented with the terms.” Id. at 838.

I think it was a clickwrap agreement, and this is an example of a court treating a clickwrap agreement as a browsewrap agreement, a trend which has leaked into other cases.  As browsewrap agreements require a little bit more as far as assent from the user this trend is important to note.

The Terms of Service required that to create an account each user had to click on a “Sign Up” button and agree to the following “By clicking Sign Up, you are indicating that you have read and agree to the Terms of Service” where the words Terms of Service were a hyperlink to another page which contained the Terms of Service (which you did not have to view to sign up).

The Court held that the forum selection clause was enforceable against the user, and that failure of a user to read the terms does not let them avoid the agreement (user was savy enough to know how hyperlinks work). Court analogized to the cruise ship cases (below) where ticket holders were deemed to have had actual or constructive knowledge of the terms on the back of the ticket regarding forum selection.

See Effron v. Sun Line Cruises, 67 F.3d 7 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1995) (upheld forum selection clause requiring all suits be brought in Greece, where NY resident bought ticket in FL, and was injured in cruise off of Brazil).

See Also Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991) (held that United States federal courts will enforce forum selection clauses so long as the clause is not unreasonably burdensome to the party seeking to escape it.  There, the contract was printed on the back of the ticket.  The customer bought the ticket in WA, the ticket’s forum selection said claims would be heard exclusively in FL.  The customer boarded in CA, and was injured off Mexico.  The court held the clause enforceable.).

A similar decision on Facebook’s terms of use was rendered in E.K.D. v. Facebook, Inc., 885 F. Supp. 2d 894 (S.D. Ill. 2012).

Other NY courts have followed the precedent in Fjeta.  See 5381 Partners LLC v. Shareasale.com, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136003, 24-25 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2013) (“The instant case presents circumstances that are quite analogous to those in Fteja, and the Court agrees with the Fteja court’s analysis. Unlike the license terms at issue in Specht, defendant’s reference to its Merchant Agreement appears on the same screen as the button a prospective merchant must click in order to activate its account. (See Littleton Decl. Ex. B.) Plaintiff did not need to scroll or change screens in order to be advised of the Merchant Agreement; the existence of, and need to accept and consent to, the Merchant Agreement was readily visible. Moreover, whereas Facebook’s Terms of Use were referenced below the button a prospective user had to click in order to assent, defendant’s reference to its Merchant Agreement appears adjacent to the activation button (id.), thereby making it even more clear [*25] that prospective merchants of ShareASale are aware that by clicking the button to activate their account, they manifest their assent to the Merchant Agreement.”).

Clickwrap License Cases: Treiber & Straub, Inc. v. UPS, 474 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2007)

Contracts, Internet Law, Online Agreements

Treiber & Straub, Inc. v. UPS, 474 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2007).

I think this case gives a more “substantive” holding than some of the other cases which merely hold that procedural items are enforceable, such as forum selection, class action waivers, etc.  This case actually enforces UPS’s online shipping website’s Terms of Use to the detriment of the shipper.

In this case, a user shipped a ring worth $100,000 via UPS’s online shipping website.  He submitted the ring in a package for shipping with the shipping label.  UPS then lost or misplaced the package.

In order to ship the ring the user had to click not once, but twice, to agree to UPS’s websites shipping Terms of Use.  The terms provided that UPS would not be responsible for any item of “unusual value” which it stated was anything over $50,000 (which is the maximum amount UPS let you insure an item for).

The shipper then put in a claim with UPS, and UPS disclaimed stating it did not have to pay him anything because it was an item of unusual value. The shipper then sued for the value of the ring and the court upheld UPS’s Terms of Use, finding that UPS provided adequate notice on its website to anyone shipping an item.

The Court held that using a clickwrap agreement for online transactions was “common in Internet commerce” where “one signifies agreement by clicking on a box on the screen.”  The court reasoned that merely because the user chose not to read the terms, that does not let him avoid any of the provisions he does not like.

Clickwrap License Cases: Davidson & Associates v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005)

Contracts, Internet Law, Online Agreements

In Davidson & Associates v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a clickwrap agreement that prohibited reverse engineering. In that case, the clickwrap agreement that had to be accepted prior to playing the online game prohibited reverse engineering.

The clickwrap agreement was included in the End User License Agreement that each user had to affirmatively agree to (by clicking on “I Agree” button) when installing the game, and you could not play the game without agreeing. Users also had to enter a CD Key which was included on the copy of the CD the game came on. The CD Key was connected to the CPU’s IP address to prohibit pirating and copying of the CDs.

Certain users, unhappy with the games’ performance and the system used to play the online game, reverse engineered the game and created their own site to play it against others on the game maker’s site.  Blizzard, the game maker sued.

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the clickwrap agreement provision that prohibited reverse engineering, stating that the users had expressly relinquished their right to reverse engineer by agreeing to the terms of the license agreement.

There were various other copyright claims, and the court also held that the users violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which seemingly made ruling against the users easier.