arbitration

Subscribe to arbitration

Many online services feature comprehensive terms of use intended to protect their business from various types of risks.  While it is often the case that a great deal of thought goes into the creation of those terms, frequently less attention is paid to how those terms are actually presented to users of the service. As case law continues to demonstrate, certain mobile and website presentations will be held to be enforceable, others will not.  Courts continue to indicate that enforceability of terms accessible by hyperlink depends on the totality of the circumstances, namely the clarity and conspicuousness of the relevant interface (both web and mobile) presenting the terms to the user. In a prior post about electronic contracting this year, we outlined, among other things, the danger of having a cluttered registration screen.  In this post, we will spotlight five recent rulings from the past few months where courts blessed the mobile contracting processes of e-commerce companies, as well as one case which demonstrates the danger of using a pre-checked box to indicate assent to online terms.

The moral of these stories is clear – the presentation of online terms is essential to enhancing the likelihood that they will be enforced, if need be. Thus, the design of the registration or sign-up page is not just an issue for the marketing, design and technical teams – the legal team must focus on how a court would likely view a registration interface, including pointing out the little things that can make a big difference in enforceability. A failure to present the terms properly could result in the most carefully drafted terms of service ultimately having no impact on the business at all.

Courts are increasingly taking a magnifying glass to electronic contracting processes, particularly how the presentation of the terms of service and call to action are displayed.  As such, companies might take a second look at their own user registration and e-commerce purchase processes to ensure they offer reasonably conspicuous notice of the existence of contract terms and obtain manifestation of assent by the user to those terms.  Courts will generally enforce clickwrap style agreements as long as the layout and language of the site or mobile app give the user reasonable notice that a click will manifest assent to an agreement.  Last year, the Second Circuit, in the notable Meyer opinion, blessed Uber’s mobile contracting process, but in considering a similar Uber platform, a New York state court late last month declined to compel the arbitration of user claims due to what the court considered an “ambiguous registration process.”  (Ramos v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 28162 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. May 31, 2018)).  Such conflicting rulings highlight the importance of web design in determining if a service’s terms are deemed enforceable.

In recent years, courts have issued varying rulings as to whether online or mobile users adequately consented to user agreements or terms of service when completing an online purchase or registering for a service.  In each case, judges have examined the facts closely, particularly the user interface that presents the terms to the user before he or she completes a transaction.  In an important ruling vindicating Uber’s user registration and electronic contracting process, the Second Circuit reversed the lower court and held that the notice of Uber’s terms of service was reasonably conspicuous and that the plaintiff unambiguously manifested assent to the terms, and therefore agreed to arbitrate his claims with Uber. (Meyer v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2017 WL 3526682 (2d Cir. Aug. 17, 2017)).  While clearly good news for Uber in this litigation, in blessing Uber’s mobile contracting process, the court also established something of a template for other mobile apps to follow to ensure that their terms and conditions will be enforceable against their members or users. 

This past summer, we wrote about two instances in which courts refused to enforce website terms presented in browsewrap agreements.  As we noted, clickthrough agreements are generally more likely to be found to be enforced.  However, even the enforceability of clickthrough agreements is going to depend, in part, on how the user experience leading to the “agreement” is designed.  Two recent decisions illustrate the importance of web design and the presentation of the “call to action” language in determining the enforceability of a site’s clickthrough terms.

In a decision from early November, a D.C. federal court ruled that an Airbnb user who signed up on a mobile device had assented to the service’s Terms and was bound to arbitrate his claims. (Selden v. Airbnb, Inc., 2016 WL 6476934 (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2016)).   Conversely, in a notable decision from late August, the Second Circuit refused to rule as a matter of law that the plaintiff was bound by the arbitration clause contained in Amazon’s terms and conditions because the plaintiff did not necessarily assent to and was on constructive notice of the terms when he completed the purchase in question. (Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2016 WL 4473225 (2d Cir. Aug. 25, 2016)).

Since the Seventh Circuit opinion in ProCD v. Zeidenberg (7th Cir. 1996), judicial analysis of standard form contracts has proceeded along lines that have, in general, been more favorable to the efforts of sellers and licensors seeking to enforce the provisions of “agreement now, terms later” contracts. The ProCD v. Zeidenberg analysis of the relevant UCC provisions endorsed the enforceability of additional terms included in shrinkwrap and mail order “in the box” contracts on the theory that a purchaser or licensee who disagreed with the later-presented terms could reject the terms and avoid contract formation by returning the goods.

Over time, the ProCD v. Zeidenberg approach to later-presented terms has become the majority view. But just because a court adopts the ProCD v. Zeidenberg analysis, it will not necessarily find that a “terms later” contract is enforceable. That was the case in Defontes v. Dell, decided on December 10 by the Rhode Island Supreme Court.