Randazza: Online Businesses Shouldn't Rely on 'Browsewraps'

How many of you have ever read the terms and conditions on websites that you frequent? I often say that drafting online agreements is some of the loneliest work a lawyer can do. Usually, even the webmaster stops reading after a few paragraphs.

A "South Park" episode made a joke out of the fact that very few people read online terms and conditions before agreeing to them.  In that episode, as a result of some terms buried in the iTunes terms and conditions, Apple takes certain liberties with Kyle Broflovski. Kyle has his lips sewn to the anus of an Asian man, and his anus, in turn, sewn to the lips of a woman. The episode rises to a comedic crescendo as cuttlefish passes from the digestive tract of the Asian man through Kyle and into the woman and then exits as power for the HumancentiPad.

Recently, the District of Nevada did its part to help us avoid such a fate in In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Security Breach Litigation.  The opinion lacks any of "South Park"’s theatrics and humor, but should be of far more interest to any readers who do any business online. Since most readers of this article are in the adult industry, that means every one of you should be concerned about this recent order. The order may render arbitration clauses contained within many online terms of service unenforceable. See In Re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Security Breach Litigation, 3:12-cv-00325, Sept. 27, 2012.

The court’s order arose from a series of cases pertaining to a security breach that occurred on Zappos.com. The site’s terms of use contained a clause that required users to resolve any disputes through confidential arbitration in Las Vegas for any disputes. Additionally, much like many online terms, the first paragraph reserved the right to unilaterally amend the agreement, stating:

“We reserve the right to change this Site and these terms and conditions at any time. Accessing, browsing or otherwise using the site indicates your agreement to all the terms and conditions in this agreement, so please read this agreement carefully before proceeding.”

The court held that this provision of the terms of service made all the rest of the terms unenforceable – including the all-important dispute resolution clause.  Other courts have dubbed similar website terms of use, that do not require an affirmative to agree to them, “browserap” agreements. 

Unlike “clickwrap” agreements, which require users to expressly assent to the agreement’s terms by clicking a button, browsewrap agreements do not require any affirmative act proving that the user actually agreed to the terms.  Without evidence of an agreement to be bound by the terms, courts determine the validity of terms of use by analyzing whether the user has constructive knowledge of them. That is, did the user know about them, or should the user have known about them. Particularly, the terms of use’s enforceability relies on whether the website provides users reasonable notice of the contract’s terms.

Zappos’ terms were not sufficiently visible on the site to provide users adequate notice.  There was an inconspicuous hyperlink toward the bottom of each page. The link was indistinguishable from other links on the site. Zappos neither prompted nor required its users to read the terms of use when users created an account, logged into an existing account, or made a purchase. Thus, the court had no way to determine that the users had ever clicked on the terms to view them in order to agree to them.

Like most states, Nevada requires that contracts must have an offer, acceptance of that offer, a meeting of the minds as to the contract’s terms, and consideration. However, based on the browsewrap agreement before the court, the court could not find that Zappos’ users ever agreed to (or even read) these terms.  Therefore, Zappos’ users had entered into a contract with the site. The Nevada court’s decision revisited other court decisions resolving this issue identically nationwide, invalidating provisions in many other online terms of service because the browsewrap agreement was not sufficient to put users on notice of the bargain they putatively entered by using the site.

Secondly, the court found that Zappos’ terms of use created an “illusory” contract – the appearance of an agreement where, in fact, none existed. Because Zappos’ terms of service allowed the online retailer to unilaterally change any part of the terms of use at any time – changing the purpose and nature of the agreement – the court held that this was no contract at all. As Zappos could rescind the promise to arbitrate at its leisure, the court held the arbitration clause was unenforceable. Specifically, the court was concerned that “the agreement allows Zappos to hold its customers and users to the promise to arbitrate while reserving its own escape hatch.”

Essentially, an agreement that binds only one party, while giving the other party the unrestricted right to terminate the agreement, is no agreement at all. Thus, the logic in this case reaches far beyond Nevada.

Based on the Zappos decision and the nationwide applicability of its core holdings, any online business should review their terms and conditions.  In particular, relying on a mere “browsewrap” agreement – rather than a clickwrap one – is begging for a court to invalidate those terms. Similarly, terms that provide the unilateral right to amend key portions of the terms of use may be unenforceable. If your terms have not been updated in a year or more, or they contain provisions like those described above, contact your attorney and have them re-worked.

The author is the managing partner of Randazza Legal Group with offices in Las Vegas, Phoenix and Miami.  

(c) Randazza Legal Group 2012.


  

Copyright © 2024 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.

More News

Kansas Law Firm Deploys Religion, Bunk Science While Recruiting Plaintiffs Under AV Law

Kansas-based personal injury law firm Mann Wyatt Tanksley is promoting debunked scientific theories and leveraging religious affiliation against the industry while it seeks potential plaintiffs for lawsuits against adult companies under the state’s age verification law.

UK Tech Secretary Lists Age Verification Among OSA Priorities

Peter Kyle, the U.K.’s Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, on Wednesday made public a draft version of his priorities for implementing the Online Safety Act (OSA), including age verification.

AEBN Publishes Popular Seraches by Country for September, October

AEBN has released its list of popular searches from its straight and gay theaters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Avery Jane Featured on 'Adult Time Podcast'

Avery Jane is the latest guest on the “Adult Time Podcast,” hosted by studio CCO Bree Mills.

FSC: Kansas Law Firm Threatens Adult Site Over Age Verification

The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) has been notified that Kansas law firm Mann Wyatt Tanksley has sent a letter threatening an adult website with a lawsuit for breaking the state's age verification law.

10th Circuit Rejects Final FSC Appeal in Utah AV Case

The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on Monday rejected a motion by Free Speech Coalition (FSC) requesting that the full court rehear its appeal in Free Speech Coalition v. Anderson, the industry trade association’s challenge to Utah’s age verification law.

Trump Nominates Project 2025 Contributor, Section 230 Foe to Chair FCC

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated, as his pick to head the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr — an author of Project 2025 who has called for gutting Section 230 protections.

Streamate's Elevate Partners With Miss Mei on Decriminalization Initiative

Streamate’s Elevate initiative is debuting a November collaboration with creator and community advocate Miss Mei that will highlight the modern criminalization of sex work.

RedGIFs Launches New Mobile App

RedGIFs has launched a new mobile app designed to offer users a smoother, faster browsing experience.

Nicole Aniston Guests on Chaturbate's 'Sex Tales' Podcast

Nicole Aniston is the latest guest on Chaturbate’s “Sex Tales” podcast, hosted by Melissa Stratton and Vanniall and streaming on the company’s “Camming Life” YouTube channel.

Show More