Court Rules that Online Contracts Cannot Be Unilaterally Changed by One Party   8/5/2007 - 1,545 views, 1 Comment

Summary: A Federal court ruled last week that online contracts cannot be unilaterally changed - that is changed by one party without the consent of the other party - in the matter of Joseph Douglas versus Talk America, which purchased the service to which Joe Douglas was subscribed from America Online (AOL).

Previous Article « Want Emoticons for MSN? Here’s Where to Find Them!
Read Next Article » Bust Your ISP! Test to Determine Whether Your ISP Is Injecting Their Own Ads Into Your Browser

A Federal court ruled last week that online contracts cannot be unilaterally changed - that is changed by one party without the consent of the other party. This ruling affects potentially thousands of contract agreements across the Internet, as many companies are used to telling their customers “changes to our terms of service will be posted on the website, and it is your responsibility to check to see how we have changed your terms.”

The ruling, which came last week out of the 9th District court, was in the matter of Joseph Douglas versus Talk America, which purchased the service to which Joe Douglas was subscribed from America Online (AOL).

Explains the Court’s opinion: “Joe Douglas contracted for long distance telephone service with America Online. Talk America subsequently acquired this business from AOL and continued to provide telephone service to AOL’s former customers. Talk America then added four provisions to the service contract: (1) additional service charges; (2) a class action waiver; (3) an arbitration clause; and (4) a choice-of-law provision pointing to New York law. Talk America posted the revised contract on its website but, according to Douglas, it never notified him that the contract had changed. Unaware of the new terms, Douglas continued using Talk America’s services for four years.”

Because Douglas had his Talk America services auto-billed to his credit card, he didn’t discover the new, additional charges for a period of time - resulting in Talk America receiving the higher payments for quite some time, and a lot more money from Douglas than he’d thought they were getting - without Douglas ever realizing that was what they were doing, let along agreeing to it.

Douglas filed a class action suit which was..hey… in violation of Talk America’s new service contract. Talk America successfully forced Douglas into arbitration, which he apparently lost, and then he appealed. Eventually, the whole legal ball of wax made it up to the 9th District Federal appeals court, which held that:

“Even if Douglas had visited [Talk America’s] website, he would have had no reason to look at the contract posted there. Parties to a contract have no obligation to check the terms on a periodic basis to learn whether they have been changed by the other side. Indeed, a party can’t unilaterally change the terms of a contract; it must obtain the other party’s concent before doing so.” [Emphasis ours.]

So, there you have it. The next time you sign up for an online service, and they tell you that it’s your responsibility to check the site for updates to your agreement with them, point them to old Douglas v. Talk America.

Get FREE email alerts of new Internet Patrol stories!
    *We never share your email address with anyone

Email Address:
Date of first visit:
How you found us:

Subscribe
to The Internet Patrol on your cell phone    Email the link for this page to a friend!

Read more:

»  California Supreme Court Rules that Free Speech Trumps Libel When Individuals Quote Defamatory Statements on Internet

»  Yahoo Greetings from the Yahoo Roof Party

»  Court Grants Scott Richter TRO against SpamCop/Ironport

»  Spam Blacklist Owner Not Responsible for Damages to Email Sender, Judge Rules

For additional similar stories check out our archives on AOL, Internet Law

 

1 Comment »

  1. Credit cards and banks have used implied consent for years. They send you notice of the change and say that if you remain a customer after X date, you’re consenting to the change.

    So does this mean that the only change in behavior required of online services is notification, or will the whole passive consent thing that on and offline companies use now (implied consent via not taking action to cancel or protest) be thrown out? Hmmmm?

    Comment by Smith — 7/31/2007 @ 12:34 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Warning! All comments which contain URLs and are clearly just spam to generate a link back to the URL will be deleted on sight. Don't bother wasting your time!

If you are going to include a URL in your comment,
please keep it under 25 characters in length,
or use TinyURL to shorten it before including it in your comment.

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic, your email address is never displayed.
HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)


We apologize for having to ask you to enter the letters and numbers you see in the image above to validate your comment, but we are being attacked by thousands of comment form spams every day!

 
The Internet Patrol
Patrolling the Internet for You!