Feeds

US court dumps on “browserwrap” T&Cs

Zappos’ customer contract tossed

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Remote control for virtualized desktops

A Nevada court ruling against Zappos has reiterated what companies the world over should have worked out for themselves: “browserwrap” terms and conditions aren’t worth the paper they’re not written on.

Zappos is being sued over a data breach which earlier this year exposed millions of customers’ names, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, password hashes and home addresses. The Amazon subsidiary tried to fend off a class-action lawsuit by sending the matter to arbitration, citing its terms of service.

Unfortunately for Zappos, the court says the agreement is unenforceable.

Zappos.com’s terms and conditions had tried to demand that disputes had to go to arbitration in Nevada – hence the jurisdiction of this decision – and, as is all too common, asserted the right to “change this site and these terms and conditions at any time”.

If you wish to swim through the entire judgement, the PDF is here, with an analysis by Eric Goldman at his Technology and Marketing Law Blog here.

The short version is that the users now suing Zappos didn’t agree to the terms and conditions, so there wasn’t an enforceable contract in place. This isn’t a new legal principle: this decision cites cases as far back as 2002’s Specht vs. Netscape decision: “Because no affirmative action is required by the website user to agree to the terms of a contract other than his or her use of the website, the determination of the validity of a browserwrap contract depends on whether the user has actual or constructive knowledge of a website’s terms and conditions”.

In this case, the court found that Zappo’s terms and conditions link was, in essence, hidden away where nobody read it – and since the users didn’t know the document existed, they weren’t bound by it.

Moreover, the court decided that Zappo’s attempt to give itself the right to change the T&Cs at any time and without notification rendered the contract “illusory”: “the agreement allows Zappos to hold its customers and users to the promise to arbitrate while reserving its own escape hatch”.

Zappo’s “highly inconspicuous hyperlink buried among a sea of links” did not bind users to arbitrate, the court found.

So be reminded: if your customers don’t have to consent to the terms and conditions, US courts won’t consider them enforceable.

As for the Zappos case: since arbitration isn’t available, the company will either have to settle with its plaintiffs, or let the case go to court. ®

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

Whitepapers

Choosing cloud Backup services
Demystify how you can address your data protection needs in your small- to medium-sized business and select the best online backup service to meet your needs.
Getting started with customer-focused identity management
Learn why identity is a fundamental requirement to digital growth, and how without it there is no way to identify and engage customers in a meaningful way.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Reducing the cost and complexity of web vulnerability management
How using vulnerability assessments to identify exploitable weaknesses and take corrective action can reduce the risk of hackers finding your site and attacking it.
Saudi Petroleum chooses Tegile storage solution
A storage solution that addresses company growth and performance for business-critical applications of caseware archive and search along with other key operational systems.