Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

Last updated

Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case nameKevin Khoa Nguyen, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barnes & Noble Inc., Defendant-Appellant
ArguedMay 16 2014
DecidedAug 18 2014
Citation(s)763 F.3d 1171 [1]
Holding
Where a website makes its terms of use available via a conspicuous hyperlink of every page of the website but otherwise provides no notice to users nor prompts them to take any affirmative action to demonstrate assent, even close proximity of the hyperlink to relevant buttons users must click on - without more - is insufficient to give rise to constructive notice of an arbitration agreement.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingJohn T. Noonan and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges, and Roslyn O. Silver, Senior District Judge

Nguyen v Barnes & Noble, Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014), was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in which the Court ruled that Barnes & Noble's 2011 Terms of Use agreement, presented in a browsewrap manner via hyperlinks alone, was not enforceable since it failed to offer users reasonable notice of the terms. The decision set an important precedent on the future design and presentation of online contracts for consumer-facing e-commerce sites.

Contents

Background

In August 2011, national bookseller Barnes & Noble advertised and held an online "fire sale" of Hewlett-Packard Touchpads. In response, Kevin Khoa Nguyen bought two of the Touchpads on the Barnes & Noble website and received an email confirmation of the purchase. The next day, Nguyen received an email from Barnes & Noble stating his order had been cancelled because of unexpectedly high demand. Nguyen alleged that, as a result of this delayed cancellation, he was unable to obtain the HP tablet he wanted and was forced to purchase a more expensive alternative tablet.[ citation needed ]

In April 2012, Nguyen filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other purchasers whose Touchpad orders had been canceled in California Superior Court against Barnes & Noble for "deceptive business practices" and "false advertising." [2] Barnes & Noble moved the case to the federal court and motioned to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), alleging that Nguyen was subject to the arbitration agreement in Barnes & Noble's Terms of Use.

The district court denied Barnes & Noble's motion to compel arbitration, and Barnes & Noble subsequently appealed. The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court's decision.

Issue

The main issue under consideration for the Court was whether a valid arbitration agreement between Barnes & Noble and Nguyen existed. [2] Barnes & Noble argued that the case should have been settled in arbitration in accordance with the website's terms of use. The terms in this case were presented on the Barnes & Noble website via a "Terms of Use" hyperlink in the bottom left-hand corner of every Barnes & Noble page. The link also appeared in the corner of every page of the Barnes & Noble checkout process via an underlined hyperlink in green font. The full text of the terms found by these links explained that:

"By visiting any area in the Barnes & Noble.com Site, creating an account [or] making a purchase via the Barnes & Noble.com Site... a User is deemed to have accepted the Terms of Use." [2]

— Barnes & Noble's Terms of Use, Nguyen v Barnes & Noble Inc.

Barnes & Noble argued that the location of these hyperlinks sufficiently put Nguyen on notice of the arbitration agreement. That notice, combined with his subsequent use of the website, was enough to bind him to the arbitration agreement. Nguyen conversely argued that he was not given notice nor did he agree to the Terms of Use. He argued that he neither clicked on the "Terms of Use" hyperlink nor read the terms, so he should not have been bound to the agreement.

Discussion

In its analysis of whether the arbitration agreement was valid, the court first differentiated between two contracts commonly formed on the Internet - clickwrap and browsewrap agreements. Clickwrap agreements were formed when users were required to affirmatively click an "I agree" checkbox after being presented with the website's terms. Browsewrap agreements, conversely, required no consent checkbox. Instead, for browsewrap agreements the terms needed only be posted via a hyperlink at the bottom of the page and the user would consent to the agreement by using the website. [3] Following this definition, the court classified the Barnes & Noble terms as a browsewrap agreement.

Looking to previous cases Hines v. Overstock, [3] Fteja v. Facebook, [4] Be In, Inc. v. Google Inc., [5] and Van Tassell v. United Mktg. Grp., LLC, [6] the court explained that the crucial factor in determining whether a browsewrap agreement was valid was whether the user was given actual notice or constructive notice of the website's terms and conditions. [7] In this particular case, however, there was no evidence that Nguyen had knowledge of the agreement. Consequently the validity of the Barnes & Noble browsewrap agreement depended on whether Barnes & Noble put a "reasonably prudent user on inquiry notice of the terms of the contract" [2] as determined by an examination of the "conspicuousness and placement of the Terms of Use hyperlink, other notices given to users of the terms of use, and the website's general design." [2]

In analyzing these measures, the court found that Barnes & Noble hyperlinks were displayed more prominently than in the Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp. , [8] where the terms hyperlink was buried at the bottom of the page. A relatively prominent hyperlink alone however, the court stated, was insufficient to give the user notice of the terms. Although a similar case validated hyperlinked browsewrap terms in PDC Labs Inc. v Hack Co, [9] that case differed in that the website also included a screen stating "Review terms." In conclusion, the court decided Barnes & Noble gave insufficient notice of its terms of use to hold Nguyen and its users to the arbitration agreement. Offering perhaps a broader scope of the factors influencing its decision, the court wrote:

"In light of the lack of controlling authority on point, and in keeping with courts' traditional reluctance to enforce browsewrap agreements against individual consumers, we therefore hold that where a website makes its terms of use available via a conspicuous hyperlink of every page of the website but otherwise provides no notice to users nor prompts them to take any affirmative action to demonstrate assent, even close proximity of the hyperlink to relevant buttons users must click on - without more - is insufficient to give rise to constructive notice."

—  Nguyen v Barnes & Noble Inc.

The court also rejected Barnes & Noble's argument that Nguyen's familiarity with other websites (including his own) should have led him to constructive notice of Barnes & Noble's terms. [10] The court also refuted Barnes & Noble's argument that the district court inappropriately rejected Barnes & Noble's estoppel argument that Nguyen ratified the terms of use by abiding by its choice of law provision. [10]

Implications

Legal professionals predicted that this decision might impact the future design of terms of use agreements particularly for e-commerce sites, rather than business-to-business sites. [11] [12] The court's decision to include a reference to the "courts' traditional reluctance to enforce browsewrap agreements against individual consumers" [2] indicated that this case would particularly impact consumer-facing businesses. [11] At the time, it led to legal professionals recommending that e-commerce sites consider adding clear manifestations of consent - like checkmarks - or text clearly stating that continued use of the site would be interpreted as the user's consent to the terms. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hyperlink</span> Method of referencing visual computer data

In computing, a hyperlink, or simply a link, is a digital reference to data that the user can follow or be guided to by clicking or tapping. A hyperlink points to a whole document or to a specific element within a document. Hypertext is text with hyperlinks. The text that is linked from is known as anchor text. A software system that is used for viewing and creating hypertext is a hypertext system, and to create a hyperlink is to hyperlink. A user following hyperlinks is said to navigate or browse the hypertext.

An end-user license agreement or EULA is a legal contract between a software supplier and a customer or end-user, generally made available to the customer via a retailer acting as an intermediary. A EULA specifies in detail the rights and restrictions which apply to the use of the software.

Shrinkwrap contracts or shrinkwrap licenses are boilerplate contracts packaged with products; use of the product is deemed acceptance of the contract.

A clickwrap or clickthrough agreement is a prompt that offers individuals the opportunity to accept or decline a digitally-mediated policy. Privacy policies, terms of service and other user policies, as well as copyright policies commonly employ the clickwrap prompt. Clickwraps are common in signup processes for social media services like Facebook, Twitter or Tumblr, connections to wireless networks operated in corporate spaces, as part of the installation processes of many software packages, and in other circumstances where agreement is sought using digital media. The name "clickwrap" is derived from the use of "shrink wrap contracts" commonly used in boxed software purchases, which "contain a notice that by tearing open the shrinkwrap, the user assents to the software terms enclosed within".

<i>Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.</i> American legal case

Specht v. Netscape, 306 F.3d 17, is a ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the enforceability of clickwrap licenses under contract law. The court held that merely clicking on a download button does not show consent with license terms, if those terms were not conspicuous and if it was not explicit to the consumer that clicking meant agreeing to the license.

<i>Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.</i>

Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, 280 F.3d 934 withdrawn, re-filed at 336 F.3d 811, is a U.S. court case between a commercial photographer and a search engine company. During the case, ownership of Arriba Soft changed to Sorceron, the operator of the Internet search engine Ditto.com. The court found that US search engines may use thumbnails of images, though the issue of inline linking to full size images instead of going to the original site was not resolved.

Browsewrap is a term used in Internet law to refer to a contract or license agreement covering access to or use of materials on a web site or downloadable product. In a browse-wrap agreement, the terms and conditions of use for a website or other downloadable product are posted on the website, typically as a hyperlink at the bottom of the screen. Unlike a clickwrap agreement, where the user must manifest assent to the terms and conditions by clicking on an "I agree" box, a browse-wrap agreement does not require this type of express manifestation of assent. Rather, a web-site user purportedly gives their consent simply by using the product — such as by entering the website or downloading software.

<i>Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.</i> 2007 American legal decision

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving a copyright infringement claim against Amazon.com, Inc. and Google, Inc., by the magazine publisher Perfect 10, Inc. The court held that framing and hyperlinking of original images for use in an image search engine constituted a fair use of Perfect 10's images because the use was highly transformative, and thus not an infringement of the magazine's copyright ownership of the original images.

<i>Register.com v. Verio</i> American legal case

Register.com v. Verio, 356 F.3d 393, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that addressed several issues relevant to Internet law, such as browse wrap licensing, trespass to servers, and enforcement of the policies of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The decision upheld the ruling of a lower court which prevented a provider of web development services from automatically harvesting publicly available registration data from a domain name registrar's servers for advertising purposes.

<i>Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc.</i> 2007 United States civil action

Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 2d 593, was a ruling at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case resulted in an important early ruling on the enforceability of an online End User License Agreement (EULA) under American contract law, though it did not ultimately gain influence as a precedent. The ruling also clarified the matter of personal jurisdiction for a dispute involving a user of a website that originates in a different region.

<i>Goddard v. Google, Inc.</i>

Goddard v. Google, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193, is a case in which Jenna Goddard ("Plaintiff") alleged that she and a class of similarly situated individuals were harmed by Google ("Defendant") as a result of clicking allegedly fraudulent web-based advertisements for mobile subscription services ("MSSPs"). The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that the action was barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA") and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.

In the middle of 2009 the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against Sears Holdings Management Corporation (SHMC) for unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. SHMC operates the sears.com and kmart.com retail websites for Sears Holdings Corporation. As part of a marketing effort, some users of sears.com and kmart.com were invited to download an application developed for SHMC that ran in the background on users' computers collecting information on nearly all internet activity. The tracking aspects of the program were only disclosed in legalese in the middle of the End User License Agreement. The FTC found this was insufficient disclosure given consumers expectations and the detailed information being collected. On September 9, 2009 the FTC approved a consent decree with SHMC requiring full disclosure of its activities and destruction of previously obtained information.

<i>Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp.</i> Legal case concerning trademark infringement and dilution

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 was a case regarding trademark infringement and trademark dilution decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The ruling addressed unauthorized use of trademarked terms when using web search data to determine the recipients of banner ads.

<i>Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.</i>

Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc., 622 F. Supp. 2d 396, established precedent in the district that when a contract has a clause that authorizes one party to make changes to the "contract" without notification, that it is illusory and hence the entire "contract" is void.

Waesche, Sheinbaum & O'Regan was a New York-based law firm focusing on international litigation and arbitration. It was co-founded in 1979 by Donald M. Waesche, Jr., Louis P. Sheinbaum and Francis M. O'Regan, partners from the Wall Street firm of Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston.

Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 (1953), is a United States Supreme Court decision on the arbitration of securities fraud claims. It had originally been brought by an investor who claimed his broker at Hayden Stone had sold stock to him without disclosing that he and the firm were the primary sellers. By a 7–2 margin the Court held that the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 barring any waiver of rights under that statute took precedence over the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) requirement that arbitration clauses in contracts be given full effect by federal courts. It reversed a decision to the contrary by a divided panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

<i>In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation</i>

In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 893 F. Supp. 2d 1058, was a United States District Court for the District of Nevada case in which the Court held that Zappos.com's customers were not held to the browsewrap terms of use because of their obscure nature. The courts also held that the agreement was unenforceable because Zappos had reserved the right to change it at any time without informing the customers. This court decision set a precedent for businesses that use browsewrap agreements and/or include a clause in their agreements that allow them to change the agreements at any time. The decision encouraged conversation on how a business should most fairly display its terms of use and how to avoid unfairness and ambiguity when writing them.

<i>Luis Arnaud v. Doctors Associates</i>

Luis Arnaud v. Doctors Associates, Inc. d/b/a Subway, Case No. 19-3057-cv, was a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that found an arbitration clause did not apply because the terms and conditions were not reasonably conspicuous and clear on a promotional webpage.

<i>Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.</i>

Amazon. com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble. com, Inc., 337 F.3d 1024, was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The ruling was an important early cyberlaw precedent on the matter of the technologies that enable e-commerce and whether such technologies are eligible for patent protection.

<i>Feldman v. Google, Inc.</i> 2007 United States civil action

Feldman v. Google, Inc., 513 F.Supp.2d 229, was a ruling at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case has become a defining precedent on the enforceability of clickwrap agreements for Internet services.

References

  1. ↑ "Nguyen v. Barnes and Noble" (PDF). Reuters. Westlaw. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 16, 2016. Retrieved September 30, 2016.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc" (PDF). United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. August 18, 2014. Retrieved October 1, 2014.
  3. 1 2 Hines v. Overstock. com, Inc., 668 F. Supp. 2d 362 (E.D.N.Y 2009)
  4. ↑ Fteja v. Facebook, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 2d 829 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
  5. ↑ Be In, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 12-CV-03373-LHK, 2013 WL 5568706 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2013)
  6. ↑ Van Tassell v. United Mktg. Grp., LLC, 795 F.Supp. 2d 770 (N.D. Ill. 2011).
  7. ↑ "Van Tassell v. United Marketing Group, LLC". Court Listener. July 5, 2011. Retrieved October 28, 2014.
  8. ↑ Specht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002).
  9. ↑ PDC Labs., Inc. v. Hach Co., No. 09-1110, 2009 WL 2605270 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2009).
  10. 1 2 Nguyen at 16.
  11. 1 2 Adler, Matthew H.; Crisp, Kevin; Goldman, Jeffrey M.; Klein, Sharon R. "Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court's Refusal to Enforce Arbitration Clause in Barnes & Noble's Browsewrap Agreement—Conspicuous Hyperlinks to Terms of Use, 'Without More,' Is Insufficient". Pepper Hamilton LLP. Retrieved October 27, 2014.
  12. ↑ Shifman, Bette (October 2014). "ADR Briefs". Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation. 32 (9): 137. doi:10.1002/alt.21549.
  13. ↑ Delaney, John F.; Kahn, Sherman W. "To click or not to click? Ninth Circuit rejects browsewrap arbitration clause". Lexology. Retrieved October 28, 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.