Source: https://www.dataprotectionreport.com/2018/11/browsewrap-agreements-are-you-covered/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 15:14:44+00:00

Document:
Home > Dispute resolution and litigation > Browsewrap agreements: Are you covered?
As companies continue to increase their online presence through websites and mobile applications, they often rely on “clickwrap” or “browsewrap” agreements to bind consumers to terms and conditions that govern consumers’ purchase and use of products from a website or mobile application. A clickwrap agreement requires a consumer to manifest assent by: (1) clicking an icon to that effect (e.g., a link or icon titled “I agree”) after being presented with a list of terms and conditions of use, or (2) “affirmatively acknowledg[ing] the agreement before proceeding with use of the website.”  In contrast, a browsewrap agreement is a set of terms, which is accessible via a hyperlink located on the pages of a website. Unlike a clickwrap agreement, a browsewrap agreement does not require a consumer to review the terms of the agreement or manifest assent to those terms and conditions through any affirmative conduct. Instead, a consumer assents to a browsewrap agreement simply by using the website.
adequately notifies the consumer that continued use of the website or application will act as a manifestation of the consumer’s intent to be bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement.
Courts considering the enforceability of browsewrap agreements have consistently stated that the owners of websites and mobile applications bear the burden of putting consumers on notice of the terms and conditions to which they wish to bind consumers. While in some instances a browsewrap agreement may be upheld, companies that rely on this type of agreement assume a significant risk that the agreement will be unenforceable. Accordingly, unless a company’s business model simply cannot accommodate a clickwrap agreement, clickwrap agreements should be implemented.
 Rushing v. Viacom, Inc., N.D. Cal., 17-cv-04492-JD (Oct. 15, 2018).
 Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1178 (9th Cir. 2014).
 Id.; see, e.g., Zaltz v. JDATE, 952 F. Supp. 2d 439, 451–52 (E.D.N.Y. 2013); Fteja v. Facebook, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 2d 829, 838–40 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
 Id. at 1176 (citing Van Tassel v. United Mktg. Grp., LLC, 795 F. Supp. 2d 770, 790 (N.D. Ill. 2011)); see also Sw. Airlines Co. v. BoardFirst, LLC, No. 06-CV-1891-B, 2007 WL4823761, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2007).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.