by Mike Masnick
Wed, Sep 16th 2009 5:49pm
It's still not entirely clear what online agreements are actually enforceable and which aren't. We've seen cases go both ways, with a recent ruling even noting that terms that are a hyperlink away, rather than on the agreement page itself, may be enforceable. But the latest case, involving online retailer Overstock went in the other direction. A court found that Overstock's arbitration requirement was unenforceable, because, as "browserwrap," the user was not adequately notified. Eventually, it seems that someone's going to have to make it clear what sorts of online terms are actually enforceable (if any). Until then, we're going to see a lot more lawsuits like this one.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- AT&T Uses Binding Arbitration Mouse Print To Kill Throttling Class Action
- Supreme Court Again Makes It Clear: Companies Can Erode Your Legal Rights Via Mouse Print
- The Judicial System May Be Bad, But The Privatized Judicial System Of Arbitration Is Worse
- Latest CAFC Ruling Suggests A Whole Lot Of Software Patents Are Likely Invalid
- DailyDirt: Does Bitcoin Matter?