Federal Court Holds 'Browsewrap' Agreement Unenforceable | Comercio y Firma Electrónica | Foro de Discusión
Estimado visitante, estás viendo una lista parcial de temas de nuestro foro. Solo los usuarios registrados pueden ver todos los contenidos y participar en las discusiones. Te invitamos a que te registres, no hay ningún costo por hacerlo.
julio 27, 2011
Más información interesante sobre el mismo tema. Bajo análisis las decisiones de 4 casos distintos:
- Nicosia v. Amazon, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13560 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2015)
- Sgouros v. TransUnion, 14 C 1850 (N.D. Ill Feb. 5, 2015)
- Savetsky v. Pre-paid Legal Services, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17591 (N.D. Cal. Feb 12, 2015)
- Knutson v. Sirius XM, 12-56120 (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2014)
The “Browsewrap”/”Clickwrap” Distinction Is Falling Apart.
julio 27, 2011
Esta es una opinión sobre el mismo tema del blog de Eric Goldman, Profesor de Derecho de la Universidad de Santa Clara.
What’s a Browsewrap? The Ninth Circuit Sure Doesn’t Know–Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble.
The court says there are two types of online agreements: (1) “clickwrap” agreements, which require users to click on an “I agree” box, and (2) “browsewrap” agreements, where the online terms are posted on the bottom of the webpage. The hallmark of a browsewrap agreement is that a user can use the site or services “without visiting the page hosting the . . . agreement or even knowing that such a webpage exists.” Because the user is not required to express her assent as a condition of proceeding, enforceability of the latter types of agreements depend on whether a user has actual or constructive notice.
The court contrasts other cases where the user was found (or deemed) to have actual notice (such as Southwest Airlines and Ticketmaster) due to defendants’ access of a website following a cease and desist notice. Because there is no evidence Nguyen had this type of actual notice, whether B&N’s online terms are enforceable depends on whether “a reasonably prudent user” would be on inquiry notice upon using the site. This in turn depends on where and how the terms are presented. Where the terms are inconspicuous or below the fold, there is no inquiry notice. (Zappos; Hines; Specht.) In contrast, where there is “explicit textual notice,” courts may be more willing to charge a user with notice. Here, the court says that the link to B&N’s online terms is not buried, and it’s likely that the link would be in the field of vision of a user proceeding with checkout. But in the court’s eyes, this is not enough. The court seems to say that there should be “something more” drawing the user’s attention to the terms, such as contrasting text or a warning:
julio 27, 2011
Este es un tema que trato con todos mis alumnos de las materias de Derecho Informático, Aspectos Legales de la Contratación Electrónica y Protección de Datos Personales. Creo firmemente que México no está preparado para soportar en un juicio las figuras jurídicas “browsewrap” y “clickwrap“, ambas bien estudiadas en la jurisprudencia (case law) de los Estados Unidos de América. El tema es muy relevante para nuestro país ya que estas figuras son utilizadas casi por el 100% de los sitios web que hacen comercio electrónico. ¿Ustedes qué opinan?
Federal Court Holds ‘Browsewrap’ Agreement Unenforceable.
In a decision that raises questions about the legality of “browsewrap” agreements on ecommerce websites, a California court ruled that a browsewrap agreement in the form of a hyperlink to a separate webpage is not enforceable. The decision in the case of Nguyen vs. Barnes & Noble, Inc. found that even though there was a “conspicuous hyperlink” to the website’s terms and conditions in which the website did not require the user to affirmatively agree to the terms, those terms were not enforceable. The case could have significant repercussions for ecommerce websites and highlights the importance of the “clickwrap” agreement, which requires consumers to affirmatively click that they agree before completing an ecommerce transaction.
The next day, Nguyen received notice that his order had been cancelled due to a high volume of total orders. By the time he learned of the cancellation, the bargain TouchPads were no longer available from B&N or other online vendors. Nguyen filed a class action lawsuit against B&N claiming false advertising and deceptive business practices. B&N responded by asserting that Nguyen had agreed to the terms and conditions of B&N’s website, which required any claim against B&N to be resolved through binding arbitration, and asking that the case be dismissed. (In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of businesses to impose binding arbitration on consumers while at the same time banning class action lawsuits. This limited the rights of consumers to employ a full range of legal options in disputes against businesses.) Nguyen asserted that he had neither read nor agreed to the terms and therefore wasn’t bound by them.
Most Users Ever Online: 248
Currently Browsing this Page:
Joaquin Elizalde: 42
Efrain Hernandez González: 22
David Treviño: 9
Salvador Camacho Hernández: 9
Zulema Jureidini Macías: 7
Max Segura: 6
Oscar Adrián Sánchez: 6
Gil Ramirez: 5
Jorge Moreno Loza: 5
Alex Basulto: 4
Guest Posters: 0
Newest Members:LUXANGEL, LeticiaV94, miguelcentenos, CatJan, Montserrat Landaverde, AntonioDeLeyva, erikaramirez, Karamello, Marcela Acosta, machadoej78
Administrators: Joel Gómez Treviño: 204