Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Part One of this article (in the November 2007 issue) examined the use and inducement of user-generated content ('UGC') and user promotional activities, and Part Two (December 2007) examined the use of contests and sweepstakes as online marketing and promotions tools. This final part addresses issues that affect not only those types of promotions, but also other types of online marketing and promotional activities; namely, the enforceability of online agreements and terms of use, consumer privacy and data security, the use of third-party Web sites and online services, commercial e-mails and special concerns relating to children. The FTC has, for many years, been aggressively policing online activities, particularly with respect to privacy, security, e-mail and adequate disclosures.
'I Accept'
Has a Contract Been Formed?
Because many types of online promotion call for the user to agree to grants of rights and terms and conditions, a process will need to be set up to provide for the user to do so. This should be done in a manner that constitutes agreement to a contract. Since there is no signed writing in an online agreement, online contracting typically falls into so-called 'browse wrap' and 'click wrap' agreements. Some courts have held that if the contractual terms are clearly and conspicuously available, and notice is given that they are mandatory for use, that the subsequent use of the product or service constitutes acceptance ' the so-called 'browse wrap agreement.' See, e.g., Hubbert v. Dell, 359 Ill. App. 3d 976 (2005) (terms and conditions of online sale accessible by conspicuous hyperlink on five pages of the site during purchase process was sufficient to manifest assent); cf. Bischoff v. DirectTV, Inc., 180 F.Supp.2d 1097, 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (finding user accepted terms and conditions sent to user after service was ordered where terms and conditions stated that service would be cancelled if user did not agree thereto and that use was subject to acceptance). However, not all courts have agreed since there is no express action that confirms the user's actual intention to enter into an agreement. See, e.g., Specht v. Netscape Comm-unications Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (Second Cir. 2002) (inadequate notice that posted terms applied upon download and use). At minimum, if a browse wrap agreement must be relied upon because the user is merely browsing and not interacting with a Web site, the more that is done to give users notice that the terms and conditions are mandatory, the better the chance courts will enforce the browse wrap agreement. For example, a Web site might include the following notice, with a hyperlink to the applicable agreements and policies, prominently on the Web site's home page and on the bottom of each subsequent page: 'Your use is deemed acceptance of the Terms of Use {click to link} and Privacy Policy {click to link}. Discontinue use if you do not agree.' If there is any user interactivity involved, it is recommended that such opportunity be taken to obtain an affirmative acceptance, particularly if the user is permitted to post or upload content (e.g., blog entry, UGC, registration, data collection, etc.) or otherwise communicate or interact via the Web site.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?