Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why not sue Facebook (Original Post) ghostsinthemachine Mar 2018 OP
Class Action suit - with 50 million as the potential class? Anon-C Mar 2018 #1
Yeah... ghostsinthemachine Mar 2018 #2
Hell yes njhoneybadger Mar 2018 #5
All users agreed to binding INDIVIDUAL arbitration Hortensis Mar 2018 #3
Better yet regulate the ph*ck out of FB, TheDebbieDee Mar 2018 #4
Time for Zuck to "give back" Blue Owl Mar 2018 #6

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
3. All users agreed to binding INDIVIDUAL arbitration
Mon Mar 19, 2018, 02:21 PM
Mar 2018

of any disputes. Amazon's arbitration clause was upheld by a court some time ago. But perhaps a court would feel this case is just a little bit different...!

Here's something from the American Bar Association in 2015 for a quick browse.

From the Chair: “Click Here to Accept the Terms of Service”

Online agreements do not always fit neatly within the clickwrap or browse- wrap categories. Sometimes, the agreements display features of both. In Fteja v. Facebook, Inc., the District Court for the Southern District of New York considered the enforceability of the forum selection clause in the hybrid clickwrap- browsewrap agreement between Facebook and its user, requiring that all disputes be litigated in California.41

The Facebook page stated, “By clicking Sign Up, you are indicating that you have read and agree to the Terms of Service.”42 The court commented that Facebook’s terms of use are like a browsewrap in that the terms are only visible via a hyperlink, but also like a clickwrap in that the user must click “Sign Up” to assent to the hyperlinked terms.43

The court analogized Facebook’s terms to a sign next to a bin of apples that says, “By picking up this apple, you consent to the terms of sale by this fruit stand. For those terms, turn over the sign.”44 Applying that analogy to the instant case, the court saw no reason why the agreement should not be upheld simply because Facebook’s terms of use appear on another screen. The court concluded that the Facebook user consented to Facebook’s terms of use and also to the forum selection clause therein, and thus granted Facebook’s motion to transfer to the Northern District of California.45

Fteja shows that the more an online agreement resembles a traditional clickwrap agreement, the more willing courts are to find the notice necessary to give rise to constructive assent.46 Specifically, a major factor for the Fteja court in holding the agreement enforceable was that Facebook informed the user of the consequences of clicking “Sign Up,” and showed the user where to click to understand those consequences.

https://www.americanbar.org/publications/communications_lawyer/2015/january/click_here.html
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why not sue Facebook