Browsewrap License Cases: Pollstar v. Gigmania, Ltd., 170 F. Supp. 2d 974 (E.D. CA 2000).

Contracts, Internet Law, Online Agreements

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.

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

Funding Portal Rules for Regulation Crowdfunding a/k/a Equity Crowdfunding

Broker-Dealers, Crowdfunding, Financing Your Business, Investors, Stock, Uncategorized

The JOBS Act from way back in 2012, set forth the Crowdfunding exemption to the securities laws, and required that any Funding Portal that engaged in Crowdfunding registered with the SEC and became a member of FINRA.  In late 2015, the SEC came out with the Regulation Crowdfunding Final Rules and forms to permit companies to offer and sell securities through Crowdfunding and to regulate the intermediaries which can sell the crowdfunded securities.  The latest Funding Portal rules have been finalized by the SEC and FINRA. Read more

Crowdfunding Investor Alert from SEC

Crowdfunding, Stock

On February 16, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued an investor bulletin addressing the new crowdfunding opportunities that will be available to investors starting as of May 2016.  The SEC issues these alerts so that investors will be knowledgeable about such offerings, especially the risks inherent in same.

The full bulletin can be found here – SEC Crowdfunding Investor Alert.

The alert does a good job breaking down the ways investors calculate their net worth and how much can be invested in any twelve month period. It also cautions investors on the risks of crowdfunding investing and the structure of how such offering can be conducted through portals.