Online Contracts – When Is the Last Time You Read the Terms and Conditions?

by Lee Gesmer | Sep 22, 2021 | Contracts

When you sign up for an online service do you read the terms and conditions? Few people do, not even the lawyers that are hired to write these things. While online agreements are ridiculed for their length and complexity they are important to the online service companies – companies like Uber, Airbnb and countless others that have to deal with the risk of customer lawsuits. Companies use online agreements to protect themselves in a variety of ways – against jury trials (often by requiring arbitration), to establish the location where customer lawsuits must be filed (often the merchant’s home state), and to limit damages customers can recover.

The strange reality is that when a customer challenges the enforceability of an online agreement the courts have to disregard the fact that the customer likely wouldn’t have read the agreement no matter how it was presented. When was the last time you read the terms and conditions when registering for a service on your smartphone? If you’re like most people, never.

Assume that you were signing up for Uber on your smartphone, and after navigating through two screens where you entered your contact info and created a password you were presented with this third, final screen (click on the image for clarity):

Would you think that by creating an account you had agreed to Uber’s terms and conditions, even if you didn’t click on the “Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy” box and never read those terms? What if I told you that the text in that box was not blue or underlined, would that make a difference? Would the fact that the top line – “By creating an Uber account, you agree to the” – is in a lighter font than the words below it – “Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy” – have made a difference to you? Might you not have completed your registration with Uber if you’d realized that any damages claim against Uber was barred? That any legal claim had to be brought before an arbitrator rather than a court?

These factors made a big difference to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court when it was presented with the question whether Uber’s online agreement formed an enforceable contract. On these facts the SJC held that no contract had been formed.

The case was brought by Christopher Kauders, a blind man who alleges that on three occasions Uber drivers discriminated by refusing to pick him up because he was accompanied by a seeing eye dog, in violation of a Massachusetts statute that protects handicapped people with dog guides. Uber claimed that during the online registration process Mr. Lauder had agreed to its terms and conditions, one of which required him to resolve any claim by arbitration, another of which absolved Uber of any monetary damages.

After a byzantine procedural history the case eventually found its way to the SJC, which held that the framework for analyzing issues of online contract formation requires a two-part test: first, was there reasonable notice of the terms, and second, did the customer provide a reasonable manifestation of assent to those terms?

While this may sound straightforward (although I doubt it), in a case like this the devil is in the details – or, as the court put it, “the trick here is to know how to apply these general principles to newer forms of contracting over the Internet.”

What is “reasonable notice”? The court explained: “In examining the interface, we evaluate the clarity and simplicity of the communication of the terms. Does the interface require the user to open the terms or make them readily available? How many steps must be taken to access the terms and conditions, and how clear and extensive is the process to access the terms?”

What is a “reasonable manifestation of assent”? According to the court, “when considering whether the user assented to the terms of the online agreement, we consider the specific actions required to manifest assent.” Not surprisingly, the court noted that clickwrap agreements are the clearest manifestation of assent.

What about an online agreement such as Uber’s, which is not a clickwrap agreement, but rather a “browsewrap”? To analyze Uber’s agreement – and ultimately reach the conclusion that a contract had not been formed – the court applied a “totality of the circumstances” test. Among the factors the court considered were –

– The nature of the online transaction
– The scope of the agreement
– The interface design

Applying this criteria the court found that factors 2 and 3 favored a finding that Uber’s online contract was not enforceable – the agreement was broad, and the interface design was inadequate to provide reasonable notice that a new subscriber was entering into a contract.

What does this mean for online service providers?

First, online service providers should pay close attention to this case, whether they are based in Massachusetts or not, since almost any online provider could be sued in Massachusetts based on principles of personal jurisdiction. As a practical matter, the most conservative state sets the “lowest common denominator” standard for online providers nationwide. After the Kauders case, and at least for the moment, Massachusetts is that state.

Second, “browsewrap” agreements are now a thing of the past. No online provider wants to go through what Uber went through in this case – having their online contracting process and content picked apart in minute detail and argued over by lawyers and judges who have shown an inexhaustible capacity to do just this. While allowing users to register via a streamlined process that doesn’t force them to scroll through terms and conditions may be desirable, it’s not worth the risk. Clickwrap agreements are now the standard for every online company.

Third, even a clickwrap agreement is not totally immune from challenge. Online providers need to be careful to structure the registration process so that the user cannot register without being presented with the online agreement in a standard font size, being required to scroll through the agreement to the bottom of the screen, and to then either check a box indicating assent (preferable) or click a link stating “I Agree.”

Postscript for lawyers and other legal beagles: Uber faced an uphill fight in this case. In 2018 the same online agreement was at issue before the First Circuit, which held that the agreement was not enforceable. Cullinane v. Uber Techs., Inc. (1st Cir. 2018). See If Everything Is Conspicuous, Nothing Is Conspicuous: Forming an Online Contract in the First Circuit (July 2, 2018). While a First Circuit decision on a matter of state contract law is not binding on the SJC, it is highly persuasive. During oral argument before the SJC Uber’s lawyer described the First Circuit’s Cullinane decision as an “outlier.” The SJC didn’t buy that, and Uber now faces trial in a Massachusetts state court.

Kauders v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (Jan 4, 2021)

Additional posts on this topic:
Sloppy Online Agreements Costs Plaintiff Its Breach of Contract and CFAA Claims (Nov. 16, 2012)
“Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle” Is Unable to Create an Enforceable Online Agreement (May 14, 2013)
Ninth Circuit Finds Barnes & Noble’s “Browsewrap” Unenforceable (Sept. 12, 2014)
The Copyright Workaround and Reputation Management: Small Justice v. Ripoff Report (Jan. 8, 2018)

Massachusetts Recognizes Contract Damages Based on Destruction of Researcher’s Life’s Work

by Lee Gesmer | May 30, 2020 | Contracts

[Disclosure: Kevin Peters and Jennifer Henricks, attorneys at Gesmer Updegrove LLP, represented Dr. Hlatky in the case discussed below]

Contact law is complicated. It dates back centuries, and is mostly common law, meaning it evolves case-by-case in judicial opinions. There are thousands of cases, involving thousands of fact patterns, and it seems like there’s always room for one more variation. This was the case in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) April 28, 2020 decision in Hlatky v. Steward Health Care System LLC, where the plaintiff was awarded $10.2 million for damage to an asset — a cancer research lab — that she didn’t own.

The Facts. Dr. Lynn Hlatky is a prominent cancer researcher. She has over three decades of research experience, including at one time a faculty position in the radiation and oncology department at Harvard Medical School. Her research targets the development of a cancer vaccine. In 2010 Dr. Hlatky had been the principal researcher of a cancer research lab at Boston’s St. Elizabeth’s Hospital for five years. As 2010 began, little could she imagine the difficulties she would soon face. That year Steward Health Care System LLC (Steward), a for-profit hospital chain, acquired St. Elizabeth’s.

To comply with federal law regulating research grants the assets of Dr. Hlatky’s cancer lab were moved into a non-profit corporation, controlled by Steward, which would administer grant money and the lab’s operations. This is a common “business model” in federally grant-funded research labs. Dr. Hlatky continued as the lab’s principal researcher, and Steward entered into a three year contract with her committing, inter alia, to pay her an annual salary and to “continue to provide support and suitable office space” for the lab (the “support clause”). Dr. Hlatky anticipated that if this agreement was not renewed or extended at the end of three years, she would move her program (lab equipment, grants and cell samples) to another institution, a process that is not unusual in the world of grant-supported medical research.

Shortcutting a complicated story, Steward withdrew its support before the end of the three year period and left the non-profit and its assets in the hands of three unqualified individuals who drove the non-profit into bankruptcy. The lab equipment was sold and tens of thousands of cell samples were incinerated. For the gruesome details and machinations (what lawyers euphemistically call “bad facts”) behind these events see Death of a Cancer Lab in the April 2017 issue of Commonwealth Magazine.

Dr. Hlatky claimed  breach of contract by Steward, and the case went to trial in Suffolk Superior Court in Boston. The jury found for Dr. Hlatky, and after the dust settled on post-trial motions she was awarded $10.2 million, almost all of which was the amount Hlatky testified it would cost her to reestablish the cancer research lab. Steward appealed, arguing that Dr. Hlatky was not entitled to the damages suffered by the lab. At most, she was entitled to her personal financial losses, such as lost compensation. An award of $10 million to Dr. Hlatky personally, Steward argued, would be a windfall to her. And, it asked, what would present her from using the money for her own personal interest, for example to fund her retirement? Dr. Hlatky responded that she had an individual, legally protected interest in continuing her life’s scientific work, which Steward’s breach had destroyed. The “support clause” referenced above spelled a loss for Steward before the jury, and then again before the SJC, which stated:

It is important to recognize that the contract that Hlatky entered into with Steward was not merely an employment contract; Steward committed not only to employ Hlatky as the director of the [cancer center], . . . but also to “provide support” to the [cancer center], which it envisioned would evolve, under Hlatky’s leadership, “into an internationally competitive program.” The structure and terms of the contract, which Steward, a sophisticated entity, negotiated, involved more than contracting for Hlatky’s labor.. . . The jury determined that Steward committed a breach of the contract by withdrawing support for the [center], and the judge further found that this breach foreseeably resulted in the destruction of Hlatky’s life’s work.

So while damages principles are difficult to apply in this case, the [trial court] judge did not err in concluding that Hlatky personally suffered harm from the foreseeable destruction of her life’s work. Nor did she err in concluding that the jury reasonably could have sought to restore Hlatky to the position she would have been in if Steward had complied with its obligations under the contract by awarding her the amount of money needed to reestablish a functioning cancer laboratory — which, based on Hlatky’s testimony, the judge determined to be $10 million.

Having decided this issue in favor of Dr. Hlatky, the SJC decision then took an odd turn, from a legal perspective. Six judges sat on the appeal (a seventh was recused), and the six split over how Dr. Hlatky  should be awarded the money. Three justices voted to require the trial judge to fashion a form of judgment to ensure that the money in fact went toward a new cancer lab – presumably a trust that limited the use of the money for this purpose.

However, the remaining three judges disagreed with this restriction. Justice Barbara Lenk, writing for those judges, stated: “whether Dr. Hlatky wishes to start again, whether she even could start again after so much time has passed and her faculty position has been lost, whether she wishes to use the money to fund different research or others’ research in the same field, or whether she wants to hike the Appalachian trail — these matters simply are not our concern. . . .  Hlatky should receive the money damages the jury awarded, just as she would in any other case of breach of an employment contract.” Because the trial judge had entered damages for Dr. Hlatky without restriction, and because the court split 3-3 on the restriction/no restriction issue, the trial court’s decision stands – she will receive this money without restriction. This means Dr. Hlatky won’t have to suffer the indignities of a trustee scrutinizing her expenditures, not to mention a trustee’s fees and bureaucratic complications in obtaining federal grant funding that could result from use of a trust.

Implications. To say that this case was unusual is an understatement. The SJC itself noted that out of the thousands of cases applying contract law nation-wide, only one case came close to the unique circumstances of this case. It’s difficult to know whether this case represents the origin of a new branch of contract law in Massachusetts, or whether, based on its unusual facts, it’s a one-off, never to be repeated. However, we can make a couple of  general observations. At the very least, organizations that administer grant-funded research labs — especially those in Massachusetts — will review their current contracts to see if they are vulnerable in the way that Steward was in this case. This may lead to the renegotiation of existing contracts to block potential damages, or to ensure that principal investigators such as Dr. Hlatky are employees of the non-profit administering their grant money, and have no direct contractual relationship with a deep-pocketed  parent company (in this case Steward).

And, of course, well-represented research institutions won’t follow the “split duty” approach that Steward used here, where there is a fiduciary duty toward the non-profit that owns the grant-funded assets and a separate employment contract with the principal researcher. Whether the case will have consequences outside the realm of research grants is uncertain. Lawyers will take every opportunity to push the envelope on behalf of their clients, and the “destruction of life’s work” theory could provide the basis for damages theories in contexts far removed from the Hlatky case.

A last word on damages.While the base damages in the case are $10.2 million, Dr. Hlatky will receive a judgment for substantially more than that. Under Massachusetts law interest for breach of contract runs at 12% per year from the filing of the complaint in February 2014. As of February 2020 six years has passed, adding 72% in interest to the judgment, or $7,344,000, for a total of $17,544,000, plus 1/365 of $10.2 million per day after that date, until the judgment is paid. Hlatky v. Steward Health Care Systems, LLC (Mass. April 28, 2020)

Does Genius Have an Illegal “Scraping” Case Against Google?

by Lee Gesmer | Dec 18, 2019 | Contracts

Genius Media Group Inc., the owner of the music lyric site genius.com has sued Google and LyricFind for “scraping” lyrics from the genius.com website. Two aspects of this new case (only a complaint so far) are interesting – the way that Genius established that Google was scraping, which is quite clever, and the basis for Genius’s legal claim which appears to be quite weak.

Assume you have a work that you want to protect from copying but that you can’t copyright. You might be unable to use copyright law because it’s a database or compilation that lacks sufficient originality. Or, perhaps you’ve licensed the components of the database and you don’t own the copyright in them.

This is the position Genius is in. Genius publishes song lyrics online. Many of these lyrics are crowd-sourced by the Genius user community. However, Genius doesn’t own the lyrics – it licenses the right to publish them from authors and publishers. So it owns a compilation of lyrics, but can’t assert a copyright in that content.

Since Genius has no copyright ownership, it tries to use contract law to prevent copying. It’s website contains the following terms of service:

“you agree not to modify, copy, frame, scrape, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on the Service or the Genius Content, . . . In connection with your use of the Service you shall not engage in or use any data mining, robots, scraping or similar data gathering or extraction methods.”

A couple of years ago Genius noticed that some song lyrics published in Google “Information Boxes” were suspiciously similar to Genius lyrics based on punctuation, contractions and line breaks. However, Genius couldn’t be sure that Google copied lyrics from its site and hadn’t acquired them somewhere else. This was complicated by Genius’s knowledge that Google licensed song lyrics from third parties, specifically LyricFind. If Google’s lyrics were scraped or copied from Genius in violation of the terms of service who was responsible, Google or LyricFind?

Here’s where the lawsuit gets interesting.

To determine whether the Genius song lyrics were being copied Genius laid two traps for Google and LyricFind. First, Genius embedded a pattern of straight and curly apostrophes in song lyrics, as shown at the right. Genius calls this “Watermark #1.” The “dot-dash” pattern formed by the apostrophes spelled out “red handed” in Morse code. Google and LyricFind were unlikely to notice this small deviation, and it would allow Genius to see if its lyrics were being copied. Using Watermark #1, Genius concluded that Google was using lyrics copied from genius.com, and that in some instances these lyrics were sourced from LyricFind. In other words, Google and LyricFind had copied and pasted the lyrics from genius.com either manually or using an automated scraper.

Genius complained to Google, and disclosed Watermark #1 to Google to prove that Google was copying. However, according to Genius this was to no effect – Google continued to publish lyrics copied from genius.com. 

Genius then laid a second trap based on a spacing pattern (Watermark #2). Genius’s complaint explains this as follows:

[Genius replaced] the 15th, 16th, 19th, and 25th spaces of each song’s lyrics with a special whitespace character called a “four-per-em space.” This character (U+2005) looks identical to the normal “space” character (U+0020), but can be differentiated via Unicode character codes readable by a computer. If one ignores the first 14 spaces of a song’s lyrics, then interprets the four-per-em spaces as dashes, and regular spaces as dots, the sequence spells out the word “GENIUS” in Morse code . . ..
Again, it was extremely unlikely that Google or LyricFind would notice this if they were copying from genius.com, but Genius would be able to identify copying.

To make a long and somewhat complicated story short (again, see the complaint), based on its analysis of song lyrics published by LyricFind and Google, Genius concluded that both companies were scraping lyrics from the Genius website, although LyricFind appears to be the primary offender.

Case closed? Not yet – this only takes us to the second question in this case: did Google or LyricFind violate the law? Remember, Genius has no copyright in the lyrics.

The complaint is vague on this point. It states:

Access to and use of Genius’s website, including the content appearing on its website, is subject to the Genius Terms of Service, … Genius’s Terms of Service are accessible from every page of its website by a link in the footer reading “Terms of Use.”

Per the Genius Terms of Service, “[b]y accessing or using the Service, you signify that you have read, understand and agree to be bound by the terms of service and conditions set forth below. . . . Registration may not be required to view content on the Service, but unregistered Users are bound by these Terms.

Based on this it appears that Genius is unable to allege that Google or LyricFind entered into a “click-wrap” agreement that would have bound them to these terms of service.

The problem with this is that Genius may have a difficult time establishing that Google or LyricFind agreed to be bound by these terms and conditions.

Admittedly, the law of online contract formation is a mess. Companies regularly fail to take proper steps to create enforceable online contracts, and the court decisions (which are usually based on state contract law) are confusing and non-uniform. I’ve written about the difficulties online companies have creating enforceable agreements many times.

And, cases are highly fact specific – courts carefully dissect and analyze web interfaces to determine whether users are put on notice of the website’s terms and have agreed to them. However, in this case Genius appears to be at the weak end of the law. Users are not required to enter into a click-wrap agreement to access lyrics, and the terms quoted above are accessible only via an inconspicuous link at the bottom of the screens. Nor are users warned that by using the site they are bound by the terms and conditions accessible via that link.

This case has a lot of history, much of which is discussed by Mike Masnick on TechDirt here. Bottom line, Genius has been complaining to Google about lyric scraping for over two years, and apparently it’s been unable to get a satisfactory response from Google. Maybe this complaint is just Genius’s way of raising the volume on that process. And since it appears that Google sources/licenses almost all of its lyrics from LyricFind, Google will look to LyricFind to solve the problem and pay any (unlikely) damages.

It’s also worth noting (in passing) that Genius alleges that Google’s display of lyrics in Google Information Boxes ahead of genius.com links in response to search queries (greatly reducing the number of click-throughs to genius.com) is unfair competition under New York common law. However, this allegation rests on Genius’s ability to establish that Google breached a contract with Genius which, as discussed above, appears unlikely.

Update: This case was removed to federal court and was dismissed in August 2020.  All of Genius’s claim were preempted by the Copyright Act. This ruling was affirmed by the Second Circuit in March 2022.

If Everything Is Conspicuous, Nothing Is Conspicuous: Forming an Online Contract in the First Circuit

by Lee Gesmer | Jul 2, 2018 | Contracts

Online agreements are nothing new to the Internet but companies are still struggling to implement them in a way that will assure their enforceability.

The latest company to fail this test is Uber Technologies. A June 2018 decision issued by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston held an online agreement presented to the users of the Uber smartphone app in 2012 and early 2013 was not sufficiently conspicuous to be enforceable. The terms and conditions stated that users of the app could not participate in a class action and were required to resolve any dispute with Uber by means of binding arbitration. Because the First Circuit held that this agreement is not enforceable the plaintiffs in this case—who claim that Uber engaged in unfair and deceptive pricing —will now be free to proceed with a class action against Uber.

In deciding this case the First Circuit applied Massachusetts contract law, specifically the 2013 decision of the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc.

In Ajemian the state court established the following two-part test for the enforceability of an online agreement: the contract terms must (1) be “reasonably communicated” to the user and (2) accepted by the user.

In the Uber case the terms and conditions were available via a link that read “Terms of Service & Privacy Policy,” as shown in the following screen shot:

The hyperlink appears at the bottom of the left screen, and above the phone numbers in the right screen. Users of the app were not required to view the terms and agree to them, and therefore Uber’s agreement may best be viewed as a “browsewrap” agreement, where assent is given merely by using the site.*

*In contrast, a “clickwrap” agreement requires the user to click “I agree,” but not necessarily view the contract. A “scrollwrap” requires users to physically scroll through the agreement and click on a separate “I agree” button in order to assent to the terms and conditions of the website.

This was not enough for the First Circuit, which found that the hyperlink was not sufficiently conspicuous to form a contract between Uber and the users of its app.

In reaching this conclusion the court closely examined the design of the Uber app’s interface, noting that the “Terms of Service & Privacy Policy” hyperlink did not have the common appearance of a hyperlink which, according to the court, is commonly blue and underlined. This raised concerns as to whether a reasonable user would have been aware that the gray rectangular box was actually a hyperlink. Nor, the court concluded, was this hyperlink conspicuous when viewed in the context of all the other information presented on the screen: “If everything on the screen is written with conspicuous features, then nothing is conspicuous.”

This case is yet another warning to online companies to be careful when designing online agreements. This can be challenging, and as this case illustrates it is even more difficult when the user must agree to terms and conditions via the interface of a smartphone app.

It’s in the interest of the company designing an app to make registration as quick and easy as possible, and in this case Uber made the decision not to require prospective users to click any screen buttons to accept its terms or access and view the terms before completing the registration process. Instead they designed a smartphone screen that, at least in the eyes of the First Circuit, was inadequate to communicate the existence of these terms to users.

While this case was decided under Massachusetts law and courts in other states might view this issue differently (indeed, might even have reached a different outcome in this case), the decision is a warning that while browsewraps may be convenient they are vulnerable to enforcement challenges, and companies must be particularly careful when attempting to implement them on smartphones.

Cullinane v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (1st Cir. June 25, 2018).

Fagen, Becker and the Steely Dan Buy/Sell Agreement

by Lee Gesmer | Nov 24, 2017 | Contracts

The first time I heard of a “buy/sell agreement” was around 1970 when I was 19  – just a few years before I fell in love with Steely Dan’s music.

Back then my father owned a textile business in Haverhill, Massachusetts with a 50-50 “partner,” and he explained that the business had insurance policies on both of their lives. If either partner died, the insurance would fund the purchase of the deceased partner’s shares, and the surviving partner would end up owning 100% of the company.

This, he explained was a “buy/sell agreement” – the deceased partner’s estate was bound to sell, and the surviving partner’s estate was bound to buy.

Fortunately, neither my father or or his partner ever had to exercise rights under this agreement – my father retired in 1981, and sold his half of the business to his partner.

It turns out that at around the same time that I first heard of a buy/sell agreement Donald Fagan and Walter Becker, the creative geniuses behind Steely Dan, were doing something similar.

In 1972 Fagan, Becker and several other band members, entered into a buy/sell agreement providing that upon the death of any owner of shares in Steely Dan, Inc., the company would buy back that member’s shares. A classic, simple buy/sell agreement that my father would have recognized. The most significant difference is that Steely Dan didn’t fund the purchase of the deceased member’s shares with insurance – instead the shares would be purchased based on the “book value” of the company, which would be determined by the company’s accountants.

According to Fagen this agreement has remained in effect and unaltered for 45 years, and by 2017 Fagen and Becker were the only two remaining shareholders in Steely Dan. If true, when Walter Becker died in October 2017 his heirs became obligated to sell Becker’s shares back to Steely Dan, leaving Fagen the sole owner of Steely Dan, Inc.

However, according to a lawsuit filed by Fagen this month (November 2017), Becker’s heirs have refused to honor the buy/sell agreement, claiming it is no longer in effect. Fagen’s lawsuit attempts to force them to sell Becker’s shares back to Steely Dan.

What to make of all of this?

Forty-five years is a long time, and perhaps Becker’s estate has some basis for claiming that the buy/sell agreement was terminated or superseded. At this point we don’t know their side of the story. But given the existence of this agreement (which is not notarized but appears authentic), Becker’s estate faces an uphill fight.

If the agreement is enforceable, what can Becker’s estate expect to receive for Becker’s shares in Steely Dan, Inc.? Book value is simply assets minus liabilities, and Fagan’s complaint doesn’t disclose what Steely Dan’s assets and liabilities are. However, it’s worth noting that the agreement excludes from book value the “good will” of Steely Dan, which if included would have complicated and increased the determination of book value – the monetary value of “good will” can be difficult to establish, and by excluding this the members of Steely Dan likely were trying to keep things simple.

The agreement also doesn’t make any reference to who owns the most valuable assets associated with Steely Dan – the copyrights in the band’s compositions and the band’s recording contracts. It seems likely that revenues from these sources go directly to Becker and Fagen as composers and performers, but at this point we don’t know. If this is in fact the case, the only assets in Steely Dan, Inc. may be the name of the band (and therefore the right to perform in concert under the name), the domain name “steelydan.com” (which is referenced as an asset in the complaint) and the right to make commercial use of the “Steely Dan” trademark.

Most likely this case will settle out of court. If it doesn’t, we may learn more about the legal and business relationship between these musicians.

Fagen v. Estate of Walter Becker (buy/sell attached)

Update: Becker family response

Ninth Circuit Finds Barnes & Noble’s “Browsewrap” Unenforceable

by Lee Gesmer | Sep 12, 2014 | Contracts

Online companies have often found it challenging to create enforceble terms of service (“TOS”), and the courts aren’t making it any easier. Perhaps the courts have concluded that, now that the Internet is an established commercial medium, they are not going to cut vendors any slack.

The latest decision illustrating this is the Ninth Circuit’s August 18, 2014 holding in Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, holding that Barnes and Noble’s browsewrap agreement was not enforeable.

A website “browsewrap” agreement is where the online terms are posted on a site, typically via a link on the site’s homepage. By contrast, a “clickwrap” requires the website user to take some affirmative action before engaging in a transaction (such as an online purchase). Typically this amounts to clicking a box on the site indicating that the user agrees to the site’s terms and conditions.

Where the user is not asked to “check the box” and the website relies on the posting alone, things can get messy. Barnes & Noble tried to impose an arbitration clause on a consumer based on a browsewrap, but the Ninth Circuit held that B&N’s browsewrap was not enforceable. Here, as is often true in these cases, the issue came down to vague factors such as where the terms were presented, and whether “a reasonably prudent user” would be put on notice of the terms. In this case, B&N didn’t do enough:

In light of the lack of controlling authority on point, and in keeping with courts’ traditional reluctance to enforce browsewrap agreements against individual consumers, we therefore hold that where a website makes its terms of use available via a conspicuous hyperlink on every page of the website but otherwise provides no notice to users nor prompts them to take any affirmative action to demonstrate assent, even close proximity of the hyperlink to relevant buttons users must click on—without more—is insufficient to give rise to constructive notice. … the onus must be on website owners to put users on notice of the terms to which they wish to bind consumers. Given the breadth of the range of technological savvy of online purchasers, consumers cannot be expected to ferret out hyperlinks to terms and conditions to which they have no reason to suspect they will be bound.

It is far from clear what constitutes a “conspicuous hyperlink” that would satisfy the test in this decision, but online business should stick with clickwrap agreements, rather than push the envelope with browsewraps. For a similar case that I wrote about in 2012, see Online Agreements – Easy To Get Right, Easy To Get Wrong.

Nguyen v. Barnes Noble (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2014).