Google’s Adwords Click-Through Agreement Upheld
Online contracts can provide fertile ground for disputes. The trick is to set-up your online click-through agreement in such a way that the court will have no choice but to uphold it. In October 2006, in the decision in Person v. Google Inc. 2006 WL 2884444 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2006) [See Law Professor Eric Goldman’s link], the internet behemoth successfully deflected a lawsuit brought in New York State. Google won based on the forum selection clause in its mandatory click-through AdWords contract, which forces disputes to be brought in California, Google’s home turf. Google won the same battle in a different lawsuit in 2004 (American Blind & Wallpaper Factory Inc. v. Google, Inc., 1:04 cv 00642 LLS (S.D.N.Y. 2004)). This doesn’t mean the dispute is over. Merely that it must go forward in California.
In Canada, we’ve got the benefit of a number of cases, such as Rudder v. Microsoft, a 1999 decision which upheld the validity of Microsoft’s online MSN agreement. In a number of provinces we also have the benefit of the Electronic Transactions Act [Alberta Version] which sets out a number of requirements for e-commerce businesses.
Â
1 comment
[…] In previous posts we have reviewed the enforceability of click-through agreements. The US Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently upheld eBay’s user agreement. In Nazaruk v. eBay, Inc., 2007 WL 1417287 (10th Cir. May 15, 2007), a lawsuit was brought in Utah, arising out of eBay’s feedback forum.  eBay sought to dismiss the lawsuit, asserting that eBay’s user agreement mandated California as the proper venue. eBay won at the trial level. The court agreed with eBay that ”eBay’s User Agreement, the operative document governing the relationship between Ms. Nazaruk and eBay, contained a forum-selection clause (Santa Clara County, California) that was both enforceable and mandatory.” […]