[1] Scott Adams, Dilbert, United Feature Syndicate, Inc. (June 7, 1997). The strip continues: Dogbert: "Call your lawyer." Dilbert: "Too late. He opened software yesterday. Now he's Bill's laundry boy." Cited in Jennifer L. Hawkins, ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg: Enforceability of Shrinkwrap Licenses Under the Copyright Act, 3 RICH. J.L. TECH. 6 (1997).
[2] Robert A. Hillman & Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Standard-Form Contracting In The Electronic Age, 77 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 429, 430 (2002), at note 2, citing, Jonathan E. Stern, The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 16 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 391, 391 (2001), and Morgan Stewart, Commercial Access Contracts and the Internet: Does the Uniform Computer Transactions Act Clear the Air with Regard to Liabilities When an On-Line Access System Fails?, 27 PEPP. L. REV. 597, 597-600 (2000).
[3] Jonathan Coppel, E-Commerce: Impacts and Policy Challenges, O.E.C.D. Economics Department Working Paper No. 252, June 23, 2000, p. 3; ECO/WKP(2000)252. (visited May 15, 2001):
[4] See, e.g., Council Directive 2000/31/EC of 8 June 2000 on Certain Legal Aspects Of Information Society Services, In Particular Electronic Commerce In The Internal Market, O.J. (L 178); Council Directive 97/7/EC of 20 May 1997 on the Protection Of Consumers In Respect Of Distance Contracts, O.J. (L 144); Council Directive 1999/93/EC of 13 December 1999 on a Community Framework For Electronic Signatures, O.J. (L 013); UNCITRAL Draft Model Law on Electronic Signatures Commerce, Art. 2 (visited May 29, 2001) http://www.uncitral.org/english/sessions/unc/unc-34/acn-493e.pdf; Council Directive 1999/93/EC of 13 December 1999 on a Community Framework For Electronic Signatures, O.J. (L 013); UNCITRAL Draft Model Law on Electronic Signatures, Art. 2 (visited May 29, 2001) Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, Pub. L No. 106-299, 114 Stat. 464 (2000) (codified as 15 U.S.C. §§ 7001 et.seq.); Council Directive 97/7/EC of 20 May 1997 on the Protection Of Consumers In Respect Of Distance Contracts, O.J. (L 144); Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of Electronic Commerce, O.E.C.D. (2000).
[5] Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991).
[6] i.Lan Systems, Inc. V. Netscout Service Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass 2002).
[7] Compare, Adobe Systems Inc. v. Stargate Software Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15622 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (holding Adobe's license agreement is a license) with Softman Products Company, LLC, 171 F.Supp. 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (holding that similar Adobe license is a sale of goods); ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding shrinkwrap license enforceable) with Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991) (holding shrinkwrap license not enforceable); Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 105 F. 3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding Gateway shrinkwrap license enforceable) with Klocek v. Gateway 2000 Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000)(holding similar Gateway shrinkwrap license not enforceable); America Online, Inc., v. Booker, 781 So. 2d 423 (Fla. Dist. App. 2001) (holding AOL clickwrap forum selection clause enforceable) with Williams v. America Online, Inc. 2001 Mass.Super.LEXIS 11, 43 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1101 (Mass. Super. Ct. Feb. 8, 2001)(holding similar AOL clickwrap forum selection clause unenforceable).
[8] Batya Goodman, Honey, I Shrink-Wrapped the Consumer: The Shrinkwrap Agreement as an Adhesion Contract, 21 CARDOZO L. REV. 319, 332 (1999) at note 79.
[9] Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991).
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Arizona Retail Sys. v. Software Link, Inc. 831 F. Supp. 759 (D. Ariz. 1993).
[13] Id.
[14] ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] See, Christopher L. Pitet, The Problem With "Money Now, Terms Later": ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg And The Enforceability Of "Shrinkwrap" Software Licenses, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 325 (1997).
[19] Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 105 F. 3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997).
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Kristin Johnson Hazelwood, Let the Buyer Beware: The Seventh Circuit's Approach to Accept-or-Return Offers, 55 WASH & LEE L. REV. 1287, 1316 (1998).
[23] Klocek v. Gateway 2000 Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000).
[24] Kristin Johnson Hazelwood, Let the Buyer Beware: The Seventh Circuit's Approach to Accept-or-Return Offers, 55 WASH & LEE L. REV. 1287, 13
[24] (1998); Jean R. Sternlight, Gateway Widens Doorway to Imposing Unfair Binding Arbitration on Consumers, FLA. BAR J., Nov. 1997, at 8, 10-12.
[25] Sajida A. Mahdi, Gateway To Arbitration: Issues Of Contract Formation Under The U.C.C. And The Enforceability Of Arbitration Clauses Included In Standard Form Contracts Shipped With Goods, 96 NW. U.L. Rev. 403, 418 (2001). The sources cited at note 173 are: Mark Andrew Cerny, Note, A Shield Against Arbitration: U.C.C. Section 2-207's Role in the Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements Included with Delivery of Products, 51 ALA. L. REV. 821 (2000). at 843 (arguing that the finding that a contract is not formed on purchase and delivery goes against a number of courts' decisions and arguing that even if courts refuse to apply 2-207, they should still embark on a "detailed inquiry of whether the purchaser accepted the additional terms"); Mark A. French, Recent Developments: Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 12 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL. 811, 819-20 (1997) (arguing that the Seventh Circuit's "sloppy" consideration and misapplication of the U.C.C. forces consumers to "make the dichotomous, possibly adhesive choice of accepting the terms of the contract completely at their own peril, or wholly rejecting the contract and abandoning the transaction"); Kristin Johnson Hazelwood, Let the Buyer Beware: The Seventh Circuit's Approach to Accept-or-Return Offers, 55 WASH & LEE L. REV. 1287 (1998) (arguing that the Seventh Circuit's liberal approach to contract formation is inconsistent with the policies of the U.C.C.); Thomas J. McCarthy et al., Survey: Uniform Commercial Code, 53 BUS. LAW. 1461, 1465-66 (1998) (finding that the Seventh Circuit's insistence that section 2-207 does not apply to a sale in which only one party uses a form is "curious"); Kell Corrigan Mercer, Note, Consumer Shrink-Wrap Licenses and Public Domain Materials; Copyright Preemption and Uniform Commercial Code Validity in ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 30 CREIGHTON L. REV. 1287, 1320 (1997). Pathe gnatcatcher, supra note 81, at 1288-89 (arguing that ProCD incorrectly avoided applying 2-207 or 2-209); Jean R. Sternlight, Gateway Widens Doorway to Imposing Unfair Binding Arbitration on Consumers, FLA. BAR J., Nov. 1997, at 8, 10-12; Jean R. Sternlight, Rethinking the Constitutionality of the Supreme Court's Preference for Binding Arbitration: A Fresh Assessment of Jury Trial, Separation of Powers, and Due Process Concerns, 72 TUL. L. REV. 1, 1 (1997)(arguing that many arbitration agreements "unconstitutionally deprive [prospective federal court litigants] of their right to a jury trial"); Batya Goodman, Comment, Honey, I Shrink-Wrapped the Consumer: The Shrink-Wrap Agreement as an Adhesion Contract, 21 CARDOZO L. REV. 319, 352 (1999) (lamenting the Seventh Circuit's failure to apply principles of adhesion contracts to shrinkwraps); Christopher L. Pitet, Note, The Problem with "Money Now, Terms Later": ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg and the Enforceability of "Shrinkwrap" Software Licenses, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 325, 327 (1997) (arguing that the ProCD holding is "wholly inconsistent" with the U.C.C. and that it "places an unfair and unnecessary hardship" on software consumers).
[26] Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 246, 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (App. Div. 1998)
[27] Id.
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
[30] Id.
[31] Id.
[32] Klocek v. Gateway 2000 Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 13
[32] (D. Kan. 2000)
[33] Id.
[34] Id.
[35] See also, i.Lan Systems, Inc. V. Netscout Service Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass 2002); Rinaldi v. Iomega Corp., No. C.A. 98C-09-064RRC, 1999 WL 1442014, at 1 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 1999).
[36] M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 998 P.2d 305 (Wash. 2000)
[37] Id.
[38] Id.
[39] i.Lan Systems, Ind. V. Netscout Service Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass 2002)
[40] Kaustuv M. Das, Forum-Selection Clauses In Consumer Clickwrap And Browsewrap Agreements And The "Reasonably Communicated" Test, 77 WASH. L. REV. 481, 500 (2002) at note 179, citing nine opinions addressing the enforceability of forum-selection clauses contained in clickwrap agreements, seven enforced the clauses. See Koch v. Am. Online, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 2d 690 (D. Md. 2000); In re RealNetworks, Inc., Privacy Litig., No. 00 C 1366, 2000 WL 631341 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2000); America Online, Inc. v. Booker, 781 So. 2d 423 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001); 1-A Equip. Co., Inc. v. ICode, Inc., No. 0057CV467, 2000 WL 33281687 (Mass. Dist. Ct. Nov. 17, 2000); Caspi v. Microsoft Network, L.L.C., 732 A.2d 528 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999); Groff v. Am. Online, Inc., No. PC 97-0331, 1998 WL 307001 (R.I. Super. Ct. May 27, 1998); Barnett v. Network Solutions, Inc., 38 S.W. 3d 200 (Tex. Ct. App. 2001). In Thompson v. Handa-Lopez, Inc., 998 F. Supp. 738 (W.D. Tex. 1998) the court found that the clause was not a forum-selection clause. Finally, in Williams v. America Online, Inc., No. 00-0962, 2001 WL 135825 (Mass. Super. Ct. Feb. 8, 2001), the court held the clause unenforceable because of lack of notice.
[41] 499 U.S. 585 (1991).
[42] Caspi v. Microsoft Network LLC, 323 N.J. Super. 118; 732 A.2d 528 (N.J. App. Div. 1999)
[43] Id.
[44] Id. Accord, In re RealNetworks, Inc., Privacy Litig. (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2000).
[45] Forrest v. Verizon Communications, Inc., District of Columbia Court of Appeals, (CA-405-01) (Hon. Rhonda Reid Winston, Trial Judge) (Argued June 18, 2002 Decided August 29, 2002).
[46] Williams v. America Online, Inc. 2001 Mass. Super. LEXIS 11, 43 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1101 (Mass. Super. Ct. Feb. 8, 2001).
[47] Robert A. Hillman & Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Standard-Form Contracting In The Electronic Age, 77 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 429, 493 (2002).
[48] Kaustuv M. Das, Forum-Selection Clauses In Consumer Clickwrap And Browsewrap Agreements And The "Reasonably Communicated" Test, 77 WASH. L. REV. 481, 499 (2002).
[49] Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
[50] Id.
[51] Id.
[52] Id. See, Register.com v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) and Pollstar v. Gigmania, Ltd., 170 F. Supp. 2d 974, 981 (E.D. Cal. 2000).
[53] Comb v. PayPal, Inc., Case Number C-02-1227, United States District Court For The Northern District Of California, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16364, August 30, 2002.
[54] Id.
[55] Id.
[56] Id.
[57] Id.
[58] Id.
[59] Id., citing, Szetela v. Discover Bank
[59] 97 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1100 (2002).
[60] Id.