X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
(Shutterstock/Creative Caliph)

In the summer of 2017, over 20,000 people in the United Kingdom agreed to perform unpaid community service—tasks such as picking up animal waste from local parks, cleaning portable toilets, providing hugs to stray cats and dogs, and painting snail shells. Notably, however, this outpouring of civic generosity appears to have been entirely inadvertent. It occurred when public Wi-Fi provider Purple briefly inserted a new clause into its usual terms and conditions, requiring users to do 1,000 hours of community service in exchange for free Wi-Fi. Thousands of users took the deal, almost certainly without reading it. Kat Hall, “Wi-Fi Firm Purple Sneaks ‘Community Service’ Clause Into Its T&Cs,” The Register (July 13, 2017). Purple does not intend to enforce the provision; it pulled the prank to get some publicity and to make the point that people don’t actually read online terms and conditions. Though that is certainly true, under the right circumstances these contracts can nevertheless be enforceable.

It may seem odd that you can be bound by a contract you haven’t even read, but that is the law in most states, including New York. Offerees are generally presumed, as a matter of law, to know and agree to the terms of the offers they accept—even when they have only “passively” accepted them. Passive acceptance can include using a website or signing up for a service that has mandatory terms or use, but does not include an explicit “I ACCEPT” button. In such cases, where users have neither read the terms nor explicitly accepted them, the Second Circuit has held, “the contract-formation question will often turn on whether a reasonably prudent offeree would be on notice of the term at issue. In other words, where there is no actual notice of the term, an offeree is still bound by the provision if he or she is on inquiry notice of the term and assents to it through the conduct that a reasonable person would understand to constitute assent.” Schnabel v. Trilegiant, 697 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2012); see also Stephen M. Kramarsky, “Click Here to Waive a Jury Trial: ‘Nicosia v. Amazon’,” N.Y.L.J. (March 17, 2015).

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.