A federal court decision might prompt Web-based businesses to make their customers respond in some way indicating they have read a Web site�s �terms and conditions.�
A federal judge in the Eastern District of New York has ruled that web retailer Overstock.com can�t enforce a $30 restocking fee found in its online terms and conditions because there was no evidence that customers even saw the agreement.
The decision came in a court action brought by customer Cynthia Hines who was charged a $30 restocking fee by Overstock.com after she returned a vacuum cleaner. Overstock.com had a link on the bottom of its web page that lead to its �terms and conditions� and said users consent to be bound by them by merely using the site.
U.S. District Court Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr. made the rather significant decision that Overstock.com�s �browsewrap� agreement was not adequate.
�Browsewrap� agreements are those terms and conditions that are simply posted and the act of browsing the site infers that you agree to them. That�s opposed to �click-wrap� agreements in which users must click a button that says �I agree,� or some similar mechanism indicating consent.
Overstock.com�s 13-pages of �terms and conditions� are the usual nightmare of legalese. At 5,541 words, it�s the size of a serious short story and getting into the territory of a novella.
It almost seems like it was written with lots of meaningless padding to intimidate a reader by its size. It begins: �This website � http://www.overstock.com (the �Site�) is being made available to you free-of-charge. The terms �you�, �your�, and �yours� refer to anyone accessing, viewing, browsing, visiting or using the Site.�
Wow! They give you their definition of �you.�
See story here.
Tom Kelchner
No comments:
Post a Comment