 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Specht v. Netscape: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court= | |court=2nd Circuit | ||
|citation=150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (2001) | |citation=150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (2001) | ||
|date= | |date=October 1, 2002 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|appealed_from=S.D.N.Y. | |||
|case_treatment=No | |case_treatment=No | ||
|facts=Mr. Specht & others used Netscape Communicator, a free Internet browser. He also downloaded '''SmartDownload''', a separate plug-in to enhance Communicator's browsing functions. | |facts=Mr. Specht & others used Netscape Communicator, a free Internet browser. He also downloaded '''SmartDownload''', a separate plug-in to enhance Communicator's browsing functions. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 11: | ||
Visitors were not required to indicate their assent to the license agreement, but on the download page there is a link to the agreement with the words “Please review and agree to the terms…before downloading and using the software.” The actual agreement states, “The use of each software product is governed by a license agreement…you must read terms before acquiring product. If you do not agree, do not download install or use product.” <span style="background:yellow">The license agreement contains a term requiring all disputes be submitted to arbitration in Santa Clara County, California.</span> | Visitors were not required to indicate their assent to the license agreement, but on the download page there is a link to the agreement with the words “Please review and agree to the terms…before downloading and using the software.” The actual agreement states, “The use of each software product is governed by a license agreement…you must read terms before acquiring product. If you do not agree, do not download install or use product.” <span style="background:yellow">The license agreement contains a term requiring all disputes be submitted to arbitration in Santa Clara County, California.</span> | ||
|procedural_history=Defendant moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceeding due to a binding arbitration clause in the End User License Agreement. | |procedural_history=Specht brought a suit against Netscape in federal district court. | ||
Defendant moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceeding due to a binding arbitration clause in the End User License Agreement. | |||
|issues=Whether an offer of a license agreement made independently of freely offered software and not expressly accepted by the user binds the user to an arbitration clause in the agreement. | |issues=Whether an offer of a license agreement made independently of freely offered software and not expressly accepted by the user binds the user to an arbitration clause in the agreement. | ||
|holding=Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration denied. | |holding=Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration denied. | ||
|reasons=Whether or not a contract was formed is state law, and there must be mutually manifested assent in the formation of a contract. Therefore an offeree is not bound by inconspicuous contractual provisions of which he was unaware, contained in a document whose contractual nature is not obvious. | |reasons=Whether or not a contract was formed is state law, and there must be mutually manifested assent in the formation of a contract. Therefore an offeree is not bound by inconspicuous contractual provisions of which he was unaware, contained in a document whose contractual nature is not obvious. | ||
|comments=Concurrence: A reasonably prudent offeree in these circumstances would not have known of the existence of license terms, and therefore cannot be bound to such license. | |comments=Concurrence: A reasonably prudent offeree in these circumstances would not have known of the existence of license terms, and therefore cannot be bound to such license. | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://casetext.com/case/specht-v-netscape-communications-corp-2 | |||
|case_text_source=CaseText | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/specht-v-netscape-communications-corp | |||
|case_text_source=Quimbee video summary | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/150/585/2468233/ | |||
|case_text_source=Justia | |||
}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 19:49, June 21, 2023
| Specht v. Netscape | |
| Court | 2nd Circuit |
|---|---|
| Citation | 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (2001) |
| Date decided | October 1, 2002 |
| Appealed from | S.D.N.Y. |
Facts
Mr. Specht & others used Netscape Communicator, a free Internet browser. He also downloaded SmartDownload, a separate plug-in to enhance Communicator's browsing functions.
Defendant (Netscape) was a provider of computer software programs, and offered a free program that facilitates mutual exclusion algorithms used in concurrent programming to avoid simultaneous use of the processor called SmartDownload. The plaintiffs (Specht) downloaded the program, and then claimed that the use of the software transmits private information which violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”).
Visitors were not required to indicate their assent to the license agreement, but on the download page there is a link to the agreement with the words “Please review and agree to the terms…before downloading and using the software.” The actual agreement states, “The use of each software product is governed by a license agreement…you must read terms before acquiring product. If you do not agree, do not download install or use product.” The license agreement contains a term requiring all disputes be submitted to arbitration in Santa Clara County, California.Procedural History
Specht brought a suit against Netscape in federal district court.
Defendant moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceeding due to a binding arbitration clause in the End User License Agreement.Issues
Whether an offer of a license agreement made independently of freely offered software and not expressly accepted by the user binds the user to an arbitration clause in the agreement.
Holding
Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration denied.
Reasons
Whether or not a contract was formed is state law, and there must be mutually manifested assent in the formation of a contract. Therefore an offeree is not bound by inconspicuous contractual provisions of which he was unaware, contained in a document whose contractual nature is not obvious.
Comments
Concurrence: A reasonably prudent offeree in these circumstances would not have known of the existence of license terms, and therefore cannot be bound to such license.
