It’s easy to create an enforceable online “click-wrap” agreement. But, as two recent cases remind us, it’s also easy to do it wrong. Two recent cases are a reminder of this.
In the first case, In re Zappos.com Security Breach Litigation, Zappos was sued in connection with a large data security breach. Responding to the predictable class action lawsuit, Zappos argued that the plaintiffs were required to arbitrate under Zappos’ online user agreement. However, Zappos didn’t have a ‘user agreement,” it only had terms and conditions. And, it did not require purchasers to “click through” to indicate acceptance of those terms. The terms, which included the arbitration requirement, were under a link users were not even required to access while making a purchase, much less consent to. Quoting the court:
To make those terms enforceable Zappos needed to require purchasers to affirmatively signal their assent by “clicking” their agreement to be bound. It failed to do this, and therefore the terms were not binding. Zappos might have been better off in arbitration, but it’s stuck in court.
The second case, Schnabel v. Trilegiant (2d Cir., Sept. 7, 2012), is not an online license case per se, but it makes the same point. In this case the web site, a membership organization, emailed (or, if the email bounced, snail-mailed) terms and conditions to new members after they had already joined. The terms contained an arbitration clause. Could the plaintiff be required to arbitrate based on this “after the fact” mailing? Not under the circumstances in this case. The Second Circuit held:
a reasonable person would not be expected to connect an email that the recipient may not actually see until long after enrolling in a service (if ever) with the contractual relationship he or she may have with the service provider, especially where the enrollment required as little effort as it did for the plaintiffs here. In this context the email would not have raised a red flag vivid enough to cause a reasonable person to anticipate the imposition of a legally significant alteration to the terms of conditions of the relationship with [the defendant].
Much of the case law on online contract formation between vendors and purchasers comes from the Second Circuit. See: Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 306 F. 3d 17 (2nd Cir. 2002); Register. com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F. 3d 393 (2nd Cir. 2004).
You might not know it from these two cases, but this is not rocket science: require customers to affirmatively consent to online terms before they perform the transaction, and the agreement likely will be enforceable.
Oh, one more thing – don’t state that the terms can be changed at any time, at the whim of the site owner, without obtaining new assent by the customer. A lot of terms contain a provision to this effect, but as the court noted in the Zappos case, where the site owner reserves the unilateral right to revise the online terms the contract becomes “illusory, and therefore unenforceable.” The district court in Zappos cites many of the cases applying this principle to online agreements. For a 2009 blog post discussing this aspect of online agreements, see here.