Who knows what fair is, anyway. But, under certain circumstances, your terms of use cannot be completely unconscionable.
When drafting terms of use for your Website, you are probably inclined to make them as favorable to you as possible, thinking it is a "take it or leave it" proposition. If visitors don't like your terms of use, they can take their web surfing elsewhere.
Unfortunately, this approach may cause your terms of use to be unenforceable when brought into court by a disgruntled web site visitor.
As blogged about by E-commerce and TechLaw, Linden Research, the creator of Second Life, had to learn this the hard way in federal court recently.
The terms of use on Second Life provided that anybody who wanted to fight a legal dispute over the use of Second Life had to do it by arbitration and could not take Second Life to court.
Well, someone did take them to court and the federal court decided that the arbitration provision was unenforceable, because it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable ( Bragg v. Linden Research Inc., No. 06-4925 (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2007).
Some of the court's reasons:
- There is no second Second Life. Thus, Second Life had "superior bargaining power" over its users.
- The arbitration provision was hidden in a long provision with no descriptive heading.
- The rest of the terms of use were very one-sided and in favor of Second Life.
- Second Life could not prove to the court that its one-sided terms of use were necessary for its business.
Thus, resist the urge to be a jerk and put yourself into the shoes of your web site visitors. Clearly, you want to protect your own, but try to be somewhat fair.
**This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice**
