28:
257:"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."
143:. 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
288:
against individual consumers" indicated that this case would particularly impact consumer-facing businesses. 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.
174:
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:
252:, 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:
238:
of the website's terms and conditions. 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
210:
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. Following this definition, the court classified the Barnes & Noble
287:
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. The court's decision to include a reference to the "courts' traditional reluctance to enforce browsewrap agreements
193:
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
82:
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 -
270:
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. The court also refuted Barnes & Noble's argument that the district court inappropriately rejected
173:
The main issue under consideration for the Court was whether a valid arbitration agreement between Barnes & Noble and Nguyen existed. 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
248:, 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
802:
239:
of the terms of the contract" 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."
1306:
885:
795:
324:
544:"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"
165:
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.
202:
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.
639:
179:"By visiting any area in the Barnes & Noble.com Site, creating an account making a purchase via the Barnes & Noble.com Site... a User is deemed to have accepted the Terms of Use."
686:
119:
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
194:
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.
108:
1041:
719:
700:
809:
154:
against Barnes & Noble for "deceptive business practices" and "false advertising." Barnes & Noble moved the case to the federal court and motioned to compel
345:
1197:
989:
632:
892:
1145:
1301:
1296:
1170:
625:
1291:
1100:
774:
767:
303:
244:
679:
206:
agreements were formed when users were required to affirmatively click an "I agree" checkbox after being presented with the website's terms.
982:
816:
150:
In April 2012, Nguyen filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other purchasers whose
Touchpad orders had been canceled in
230:, the court explained that the crucial factor in determining whether a browsewrap agreement was valid was whether the user was given
27:
878:
841:
693:
155:
916:
996:
857:
823:
242:
In analyzing these measures, the court found that Barnes & Noble hyperlinks were displayed more prominently than in the
944:
356:
1034:
310:
596:
474:
1311:
1245:
975:
738:
648:
151:
788:
1190:
711:
672:
423:
1027:
930:
903:
830:
159:
162:(FAA), alleging that Nguyen was subject to the arbitration agreement in Barnes & Noble's Terms of Use.
1129:
392:
263:
186:
1107:
938:
317:
111:
decision in which the Court ruled that Barnes & Noble's 2011 Terms of Use agreement, presented in a
749:
663:
543:
1236:
1063:
926:
235:
96:
John T. Noonan and Kim McLane
Wardlaw, Circuit Judges, and Roslyn O. Silver, Senior District Judge
1163:
1138:
1048:
864:
83:
without more - is insufficient to give rise to constructive notice of an arbitration agreement.
1265:
1256:
1181:
1059:
136:
1204:
1073:
1018:
968:
955:
577:
1211:
871:
850:
1226:
1091:
1080:
911:
47:
Kevin Khoa Nguyen, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barnes & Noble Inc., Defendant-Appellant
1285:
959:
276:
231:
729:
147:
tablet he wanted and was forced to purchase a more expensive alternative tablet.
140:
597:"To click or not to click? Ninth Circuit rejects browsewrap arbitration clause"
757:
297:
207:
124:
116:
112:
617:
753:
203:
120:
803:
Arizona
Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.
272:
542:
Adler, Matthew H.; Crisp, Kevin; Goldman, Jeffrey M.; Klein, Sharon R.
144:
581:
275:
argument that Nguyen ratified the terms of use by abiding by its
886:
Atlantic Marine
Construction Co. v. United States District Court
796:
In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation
325:
In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation
621:
452:, No. 12-CV-03373-LHK, 2013 WL 5568706 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2013)
1307:
United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cases
514:, No. 09-1110, 2009 WL 2605270 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2009).
687:
Kansas City
Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.
109:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
38:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1255:
1235:
1225:
1180:
1155:
1128:
1121:
1090:
1058:
1017:
1010:
954:
925:
902:
840:
748:
728:
710:
662:
655:
92:
87:
76:
68:
60:
52:
42:
34:
20:
1042:Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America
720:Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States
701:Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc
1198:Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. United States
810:Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology
537:
535:
990:G. L. Christian and Associates v. United States
254:
176:
633:
568:Shifman, Bette (October 2014). "ADR Briefs".
139:advertised and held an online "fire sale" of
8:
475:"Van Tassell v. United Marketing Group, LLC"
893:Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
570:Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation
522:
520:
1232:
1146:Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly
1125:
1014:
659:
640:
626:
618:
400:United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit
26:
17:
1171:SCO Group, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
680:Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel & Casino
387:
385:
383:
381:
379:
377:
1101:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
775:Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.
419:
417:
337:
304:Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.
245:Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.
107:, 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014), was a
462:Van Tassell v. United Mktg. Grp., LLC,
440:, 841 F. Supp. 2d 829 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
983:Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.
817:Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc.
228:Van Tassell v. United Mktg. Grp., LLC
7:
464:795 F.Supp. 2d 770 (N.D. Ill. 2011).
428:, 668 F. Supp. 2d 362 (E.D.N.Y 2009)
135:In August 2011, national bookseller
595:Delaney, John F.; Kahn, Sherman W.
185:Barnes & Noble's Terms of Use,
782:Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
393:"Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc"
21:Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
14:
500:Specht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp.
211:terms as a browsewrap agreement.
104:Nguyen v Barnes & Noble, Inc.
917:Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent
879:King v. Trustees of Boston Univ.
694:Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green
264:Nguyen v Barnes & Noble Inc.
187:Nguyen v Barnes & Noble Inc.
1302:United States contract case law
1297:United States computer case law
1292:2014 in United States case law
997:Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton
858:Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon
824:Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc.
1:
945:MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
502:, 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002).
425:Hines v. Overstock. com, Inc.
346:"Nguyen v. Barnes and Noble"
1035:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.
512:PDC Labs., Inc. v. Hach Co.
311:Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com
1328:
1246:Drennan v. Star Paving Co.
1066:(unwritten & informal)
976:Seixas and Seixas v. Woods
739:Ellefson v. Megadeth, Inc.
649:United States contract law
450:Be In, Inc. v. Google Inc.
224:Be In, Inc. v. Google Inc.
214:Looking to previous cases
1011:Defense against formation
789:ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg
355:. Westlaw. Archived from
152:California Superior Court
141:Hewlett-Packard Touchpads
81:
25:
1191:United States v. Spearin
712:Implied-in-fact contract
673:Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.
1028:Morrison v. Amway Corp.
904:Substantial performance
831:Feldman v. Google, Inc.
438:Fteja v. Facebook, Inc.
250:PDC Labs Inc. v Hack Co
160:Federal Arbitration Act
268:
191:
1108:Buchwald v. Paramount
939:De Cicco v. Schweizer
318:Register.com v. Verio
271:Barnes & Noble's
664:Offer and acceptance
123:for consumer-facing
1237:Promissory estoppel
1122:Cancelling Contract
548:Pepper Hamilton LLP
236:constructive notice
1312:Barnes & Noble
1164:Stoddard v. Martin
1139:Sherwood v. Walker
1049:McMichael v. Price
865:Kirksey v. Kirksey
768:Specht v. Netscape
656:Contract formation
216:Hines v. Overstock
137:Barnes & Noble
1279:
1278:
1275:
1274:
1266:Britton v. Turner
1257:Unjust enrichment
1221:
1220:
1182:Misrepresentation
1117:
1116:
1060:Statute of frauds
1006:
1005:
582:10.1002/alt.21549
402:. August 18, 2014
220:Fteja v. Facebook
100:
99:
1319:
1233:
1205:Laidlaw v. Organ
1126:
1074:Buffaloe v. Hart
1062:(written) &
1019:Illusory promise
1015:
969:Hawkins v. McGee
956:Implied warranty
660:
642:
635:
628:
619:
612:
611:
609:
607:
592:
586:
585:
565:
559:
558:
556:
554:
539:
530:
524:
515:
509:
503:
497:
491:
490:
488:
486:
471:
465:
459:
453:
447:
441:
435:
429:
421:
412:
411:
409:
407:
397:
389:
372:
371:
369:
367:
362:on June 16, 2016
361:
350:
342:
266:
189:
88:Court membership
30:
18:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1271:
1251:
1217:
1212:Smith v. Bolles
1176:
1151:
1113:
1086:
1054:
1002:
950:
921:
898:
872:Angel v. Murray
851:Hamer v. Sidway
836:
744:
724:
706:
651:
646:
616:
615:
605:
603:
594:
593:
589:
567:
566:
562:
552:
550:
541:
540:
533:
525:
518:
510:
506:
498:
494:
484:
482:
473:
472:
468:
460:
456:
448:
444:
436:
432:
422:
415:
405:
403:
395:
391:
390:
375:
365:
363:
359:
348:
344:
343:
339:
334:
294:
285:
267:
262:
200:
190:
184:
171:
133:
12:
11:
5:
1325:
1323:
1315:
1314:
1309:
1304:
1299:
1294:
1284:
1283:
1277:
1276:
1273:
1272:
1270:
1269:
1261:
1259:
1253:
1252:
1250:
1249:
1241:
1239:
1230:
1227:Quasi-contract
1223:
1222:
1219:
1218:
1216:
1215:
1208:
1201:
1194:
1186:
1184:
1178:
1177:
1175:
1174:
1167:
1159:
1157:
1153:
1152:
1150:
1149:
1142:
1134:
1132:
1123:
1119:
1118:
1115:
1114:
1112:
1111:
1104:
1096:
1094:
1092:Unconscionable
1088:
1087:
1085:
1084:
1081:Foman v. Davis
1077:
1069:
1067:
1064:Parol evidence
1056:
1055:
1053:
1052:
1045:
1038:
1031:
1023:
1021:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1004:
1003:
1001:
1000:
993:
986:
979:
972:
964:
962:
952:
951:
949:
948:
941:
935:
933:
923:
922:
920:
919:
914:
912:Lucy v. Zehmer
908:
906:
900:
899:
897:
896:
889:
882:
875:
868:
861:
854:
846:
844:
838:
837:
835:
834:
827:
820:
813:
806:
799:
792:
785:
778:
771:
763:
761:
746:
745:
743:
742:
734:
732:
726:
725:
723:
722:
716:
714:
708:
707:
705:
704:
697:
690:
683:
676:
668:
666:
657:
653:
652:
647:
645:
644:
637:
630:
622:
614:
613:
587:
560:
531:
516:
504:
492:
481:. July 5, 2011
479:Court Listener
466:
454:
442:
430:
413:
373:
336:
335:
333:
330:
329:
328:
321:
314:
307:
300:
293:
290:
284:
281:
260:
199:
196:
182:
170:
167:
132:
129:
98:
97:
94:
93:Judges sitting
90:
89:
85:
84:
79:
78:
74:
73:
70:
66:
65:
62:
58:
57:
54:
50:
49:
44:
43:Full case name
40:
39:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1324:
1313:
1310:
1308:
1305:
1303:
1300:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1290:
1289:
1287:
1268:
1267:
1263:
1262:
1260:
1258:
1254:
1248:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1240:
1238:
1234:
1231:
1228:
1224:
1214:
1213:
1209:
1207:
1206:
1202:
1200:
1199:
1195:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1185:
1183:
1179:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1158:
1154:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1141:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1133:
1131:
1127:
1124:
1120:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1103:
1102:
1098:
1097:
1095:
1093:
1089:
1083:
1082:
1078:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1068:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1051:
1050:
1046:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1037:
1036:
1032:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1024:
1022:
1020:
1016:
1013:
1009:
999:
998:
994:
992:
991:
987:
985:
984:
980:
978:
977:
973:
971:
970:
966:
965:
963:
961:
960:caveat emptor
957:
953:
947:
946:
942:
940:
937:
936:
934:
932:
928:
924:
918:
915:
913:
910:
909:
907:
905:
901:
895:
894:
890:
888:
887:
883:
881:
880:
876:
874:
873:
869:
867:
866:
862:
860:
859:
855:
853:
852:
848:
847:
845:
843:
842:Consideration
839:
833:
832:
828:
826:
825:
821:
819:
818:
814:
812:
811:
807:
805:
804:
800:
798:
797:
793:
791:
790:
786:
784:
783:
779:
777:
776:
772:
770:
769:
765:
764:
762:
759:
755:
751:
747:
741:
740:
736:
735:
733:
731:
727:
721:
718:
717:
715:
713:
709:
703:
702:
698:
696:
695:
691:
689:
688:
684:
682:
681:
677:
675:
674:
670:
669:
667:
665:
661:
658:
654:
650:
643:
638:
636:
631:
629:
624:
623:
620:
602:
598:
591:
588:
583:
579:
575:
571:
564:
561:
549:
545:
538:
536:
532:
528:
523:
521:
517:
513:
508:
505:
501:
496:
493:
480:
476:
470:
467:
463:
458:
455:
451:
446:
443:
439:
434:
431:
427:
426:
420:
418:
414:
401:
394:
388:
386:
384:
382:
380:
378:
374:
366:September 30,
358:
354:
347:
341:
338:
331:
327:
326:
322:
320:
319:
315:
313:
312:
308:
306:
305:
301:
299:
296:
295:
291:
289:
282:
280:
278:
277:choice of law
274:
265:
259:
258:
253:
251:
247:
246:
240:
237:
233:
232:actual notice
229:
225:
221:
217:
212:
209:
205:
197:
195:
188:
181:
180:
175:
168:
166:
163:
161:
157:
153:
148:
146:
142:
138:
130:
128:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
105:
95:
91:
86:
80:
75:
72:763 F.3d 1171
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
48:
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
1264:
1244:
1210:
1203:
1196:
1189:
1169:
1162:
1144:
1137:
1106:
1099:
1079:
1072:
1047:
1040:
1033:
1026:
995:
988:
981:
974:
967:
943:
891:
884:
877:
870:
863:
856:
849:
829:
822:
815:
808:
801:
794:
787:
781:
780:
773:
766:
737:
730:Mailbox rule
699:
692:
685:
678:
671:
604:. Retrieved
600:
590:
573:
569:
563:
551:. Retrieved
547:
526:
511:
507:
499:
495:
483:. Retrieved
478:
469:
461:
457:
449:
445:
437:
433:
424:
404:. Retrieved
399:
364:. Retrieved
357:the original
352:
340:
323:
316:
309:
302:
286:
283:Implications
269:
256:
255:
249:
243:
241:
227:
223:
219:
215:
213:
201:
192:
178:
177:
172:
164:
149:
134:
103:
102:
101:
46:
15:
931:3rd parties
606:October 28,
553:October 27,
485:October 28,
279:provision.
156:arbitration
115:manner via
64:Aug 18 2014
56:May 16 2014
1286:Categories
1229:obligation
1156:Illegality
760:agreements
758:Browsewrap
750:Shrinkwrap
576:(9): 137.
406:October 1,
332:References
298:Browsewrap
208:Browsewrap
198:Discussion
158:under the
131:Background
125:e-commerce
117:hyperlinks
113:browsewrap
754:Clickwrap
204:Clickwrap
121:contracts
601:Lexology
292:See also
273:estoppel
261:—
183:—
69:Citation
1130:Mistake
927:Privity
353:Reuters
127:sites.
77:Holding
61:Decided
929:&
529:at 16.
527:Nguyen
226:, and
53:Argued
396:(PDF)
360:(PDF)
349:(PDF)
169:Issue
35:Court
608:2014
555:2014
487:2014
408:2014
368:2016
578:doi
234:or
1288::
958:,
756:,
752:,
599:.
574:32
572:.
546:.
534:^
519:^
477:.
416:^
398:.
376:^
351:.
222:,
218:,
145:HP
641:e
634:t
627:v
610:.
584:.
580::
557:.
489:.
410:.
370:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
