Talk:Clickwrap

US Centric Tag

This article is about a U.S. legal concept of contract. There may be correlative concepts in other countries, but I am not sure that they have the same name. I think it would be better to remove the tag, describe the concept of click wrap as a U.S. legal theory, and provide links to pages that deal with similar concepts in other legal frameworks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldrobertsoniii (talk • contribs) 08:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Anomoly or reference makrk?

"agreement by clicking on an icon. n12 The product cannot be obtained" I have removed th n12 for the moment,. Rich Farmbrough, 21:51 20 February 2007 (GMT).

Cleanup?

I cleaned up some of the legal citations, but I think this article, especially the opening section, could use some clarity. Weazie 19:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Confused about Register.com v. Verio

Currently the article says this about Register.com v. Verio (reformatted):

The described key to a clickwrap agreement was that acceptance or rejection must occur before being given access. "Essentially, under a clickwrap arrangement, potential licensees are presented with the proposed license terms and forced to expressly and unambiguously manifest either assent or rejection prior to being given access to the product." The court held that the click-wrap dynamic did not exist where users were presented with the license simultaneously with the end product.

I read through the legal report, and the court seems to unambiguously take the opposite position.

Nor can Verio argue that it has not assented to Register.com’s terms of use. Register.com’s terms of use are clearly posted on its website. The conclusion of the terms paragraph states “[b]y submitting this query, you agree to abide by these terms.’’ (Ex. 27 to Pl.’s Sept. 8, 2000 Motion). Verio does not argue that it was unaware of these terms, only that it was not asked to click on an icon indicating that it accepted the terms. However, in light of this sentence at the end of Register.com's terms of use, there can be no question that by proceeding to submit a WHOIS query, Verio manifested its assent to be bound by Register.com's terms of use, and a contract was formed and subsequently breached.

So I Googled the quoted statement of the court ("Essentially, under a clickwrap arrangement . . ."), and instead of being brought to a court-issued report, I was brought to this web page.

I'm inclined to conclude that

• this article and the quoted source (above) are plainly wrong about the court's stance, and
• the quote ("Essentially . . .") is misleading as it's framed as a court statement but actually comes from an independent source (which isn't cited)

... but, could someone perform a sanity check and tell me if I'm overlooking something?

Thanks, — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the web page you found was using Wikipedia as a source. The Wayback shows a version of the page from 18 November 2005 that doesn't include that text. The article history, though, indicates that the text was added on 15 July 2005. In any case, though, if the article doesn't conform to the sources, then the article should be changed, and the guy who wrote the webpage you found should learn his lesson on not using Wikipedia as a primary source. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 11:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad I'm not going bonkers. :-) Thanks; I'll fix up the article. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I also emailed the author of the electronic contract notes about it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Click-through agreement (CTA)

This article focuses on clickwrap agreements for software and should balance coverage of CTAs (or they should be covered in a separate article). -- samj _in^out 09:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Example of a common hard-to-understand click-through agreement for a paid online service whereby user agrees that software company can collect and disseminate user information as long as the collected information is used "in an aggregated form".The following illustrates what users may have to trade-off for a desired service because of the CTA: "13. Anonymous Data Collection We shall have the right to utilize data capture, syndication, analysis tools, and other similar tools to extract, compile, synthesize, and analyze any non-personally identifiable data or information resulting from your use of the Service including from any confidential information provided by you (“Anonymous Data”). To the extent that any Anonymous Data is collected by us, such data shall be solely owned by us and may be used by us for any lawful business purpose without a duty of accounting to you therefor; provided that the Anonymous Data is used only in an aggregated form, without specifically identifying the source of the Anonymous Data." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.136.84 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

examples in US lawsuits

I just added a new example of A.V., et al. v iParadigms, LLC taken from the Turnitin article. I noticed that page 7 of the supporting document [1] mentions several other examples of clickwrap agreements being upheld in court. I may add these into the article as well; if I don't get to it, feel free to do it yourself! Wingman4l7 (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging Clickwrap and Browsewrap into a single article; my suggested title would be Electronic contract acceptance. Previous discussion (from 2011) can be found Merge with article "Software license"|here. The subjects of the articles overlap considerably, and there has been criticism of a clickwrap/browsewrap distinction (Eric Goldman). RJaguar3 | u | t 20:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• These are clearly different terms, and considering the expanding scholarship in the area, I recommend that we keep them separate. --Jaobar (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Clickwrap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070306095303/http://www.isaacbowman.com:80/PKI-old-technology-has-a-new-rival to http://www.isaacbowman.com/PKI-old-technology-has-a-new-rival

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)