Page 181 - A Study on the Role of UGC Platforms in Copyright Law：An Intermediary-oriented Approach

A Study on the Role of UGC Platforms in Copyright Law: Chapter 6 UGC Platforms’ Entitlement to UGCs
An Intermediary-oriented Approach

82
to the ToU/ToS. Both of the two requirements are fact-intense and have been highly
contested. 83
The notice element concerns with the conspicuousness and placement of a ToU/ToS in
a website. In case where the hyperlink to the ToU/ToS is inconspicuously buried ‘at the
84
bottom of the webpage among many other links’ or ‘tucked away in obscure corners of
85
86
the website where users are unlikely to see it’, the courts have tended not to enforce the
ToU/ToS. Alternatively, a ToU/ToS that is exhibited via an explicit textual notice on each
88
87
webpage or is ‘accessible from multiple locations on the webpage’ has been upheld. Other
89
factors related to the notice element have included the size of the font of the ToU/ToS, the
possibility that the words ‘Terms of Use/Terms of Service’ would be obscured by other terms
90
on the screen (e.g. ‘Help’, ‘Privacy Policy’), the device (either a PC or a mobile device) the
users uses to access the ToU/ToS, and the website's general design and content.
92
91
As the lack of an explicit expression of acceptance is the ‘defining feature’ of a
browse-wrap agreement, the courts have applied objective criteria to examine the assent
93
82 e.g., Cvent, Inc. V. Eventbrite, Inc., 739 F.Supp. 2d 927, 937 (E.D.Va. 2010); Southwest Airlines Co. v. Boardfirst, LLC, No.
3:06-CV-0891-B, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96230, 2007 WL 4823761 at *5 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2007); Ticketmaster Corp. v.
Tick-ets.com, Inc., No. CV99-7654, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6483, 2003 WL 21406289, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2003).
83 For example, Cvent v. Eventbrite rejected to enforce a browse-wrap ToU because ‘the users of the website are not required
to click on that link [via which the ToU can be accessed], nor are they required to read or assent to the Terms of Use in order
to use the website or access any of its content’. (Cvent, Inc. V. Eventbrite, Inc., 739 F.Supp. 2d 927, 937 (E.D.Va. 2010)).
Nevertheless, in Pollstar v. Gigmania, one of the first browse-wrap cases, the court supported the enforcement of browse-
wrap contract because ‘people sometimes enter into a contract by using a service without first seeing the terms’. (Pollstar v.
Gigmania Ltd. 170 F. Supp.2d 974, 982 (E.D. Cal. 2000)).
th
84 Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1177 (9 Cir., 2018).
85 Berkson v. Gogo LLC, 97 F. Supp. 3d 359, 396 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing In re Zappos.com, 893 F. Supp. 2d at 1064-1065).
th
86 Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1177 (9 Cir., 2018).
87 Ibid; Cairo, Inc. v. Crossmedia Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 756610, at * 2, * 4-5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2005); Small Justice v. Xcentric
Ventures, 99 F. Supp. 3d 190, 197 (D. Mass 2015); Major v. McCallister, 302 S.W.3d 227, 235 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
88 Berkson v. Gogo, LLC, 97 F. Supp. 3d 359, 404 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).
89 Gregory Selden v. Airbnb, 2016 WL 6476934, at *8 (D.C.D.C. Nov. 1, 2016). Berkson v. Gogo held the hyperlink to the ToU
unenforceable because the hyperlink ‘was not in large font, all caps, or in bold’. (Berkson v. Gogo, LLC, 97 F. Supp. 3d 359,
404 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)).
90 Gregory Selden v. Airbnb, 2016 WL 6476934, at *12 (D.C.D.C. Nov. 1, 2016).
91 Ibid, at *14 (‘courts that have assessed the validity of sign-in-wrap agreements since Berkson have cited factors such as the
size of the font, the possibility that other visual elements on the screen might obscure the ‘terms and conditions’ statement,
and whether the user signed up for the agreement using a mobile device’.)
92 ‘Whether a user has inquiry notice of a browse-wrap agreement, in turn, depends on the design and content of the website
th
and the agreement's webpage’. (Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1177 (9 Cir., 2018), citing Be In v. Google,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147047, 2013 WL 5568706, at *6).
93 Selden v. Airbnb, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150863 (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2016) Southwest Airlines Co. v. Boardfirst, LLC, No.
3:06-CV-0891-B, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96230, 2007 WL 4823761 at *5 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2007); Ticketmaster Corp. v.
Tickets.com, Inc., No. CV99-7654, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6483, 2003 WL 21406289, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2003). Nicosia
v. Amazon, 834 F.3d 220(2nd Cir, 2016); Cvent, Inc. v. Eventbrite, Inc., 739 F. Supp. 2d 927, 932 (E.D.Va. 2010); Nguyen v.
Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Van Tassell v. United Mktg. Grp., LLC, 795 F. Supp.2d
770, 790 (N.D.Ill.2011)); In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litigation, 893 F. Supp.2d 1058, 1063 (D. Nev.
2012); Small Justice v. Xcentric Ventures, 99 F. Supp. 3d 190, 197 (D. Mass 2015).

• 167 •