Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
The California Court of Appeal just adjudicated a browsewrap case on the merits that will now be considered the current benchmark case in the ever murky issue of web-user assent.
Browsewrap is an umbrella term that generally refers to a contractual agreement or license agreement that covers a user or browser's access to materials on a website. Other "wrap" agreement types in this area include the click-wrap agreement and the shrink-wrap agreement.
The plaintiff in this case ordered "completely assembled" flowers from ProFlowers.com, but rather than being completely assembled, he received a "do-it-yourself kit in a box." He sued ProFlowers and formed a putative class to do it. ProFlowers moved to compel arbitration according to the site's Term of Use -- which was kind of hidden.
Not "Sufficiently Conspicuous"
There is some dispute online as to whether or not the nomenclature of browsewrap unfairly mischaracterized the nature of tendering assent and acceptance. The legal status and acceptability of shrink-wrap agreements has ambiguous status in United States Courts, one of the most obvious issues being a lack of means for a purchaser to manifest assent to the terms of the contract. The name suggests that assent is manifested as soon as the user breaks the shrink wrap -- in the old days one of the more popular ways to loop users into EULAs.