Instagram included a provision in the agreement that “it reserve[d] the right, in [its] sole discretion, to change [its] Terms of Use from time to time”. Instagram also changed its terms of service for existing users without using a leakproof clickwrap implementation and changed its terms in a backward looking way as to users who may have never agreed to the new terms. All of these approaches have encountered contractual roadblocks in court, most prominently in cases such as Zappos and Harris v. Blockbuster. (As best as I can recall, existing users were not required to click “I accept” to signify their assent to the revised agreement. Instagram simply relied on the fact that it provided notice and anyone who continued to use the site would have impliedly agreed to the terms.) So what happened here?
Goldman covers.
No comments:
Post a Comment