Business law

Project 1-

This is a very application-oriented exercise that requires identifying issues, determining key facts and applying the law using critical thinking skills and analysis. Your analysis should be comprehensive, fully supported/justified/explained, specific and detailed in rational. Read the following case. In three to five paragraphs write a dissenting opinion. Include at least four different citations from your textbooks only. No other sources should be used. All in text citations must be in APA proper format along with a reference page. Project 1 should be submitted through Turn-It-In by September 18 at 11:59 pm EST, http://www.turnitin.com/en_us/login. Class ID13099627, Enrollment password: legaleagles. See attached Rubric for grading criteria. This is an individual project, therefore, your analysis should substantially differ from your classmates.

Good Luck!

Feldman v. Google, Inc.     (click-on contracts) 513 F.Supp.2d 229 (2007)

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Facts:

Plaintiff Feldman, an attorney, purchased advertising through Google, Inc.’s “AdWords” program to attract new clients. Under the program, if an internet user searched using key words purchased by Feldman, his law firm ad would appear at the top of the webpage.  Each time an internet searcher clicked on Feldman’s ad, Google charged him. This type of advertising is called “pay per click” advertising.  Feldman claimed that competitors or pranksters intentionally clicked on his ad to drive up the cost of his advertising which exceeded $100,000 over a three-year period. Nevertheless, Google required Feldman to pay for the “clicks.”

Feldman claimed the contract with Google was invalid as it did not contain a definite price, and because it constituted procedural and substantive unconscionability. Feldman sued Google for damages, recovery of any profits Google obtained as a result of any unlawful internet conduct, and restitution of money Feldman paid for fraudulent clicks.

Google filed a motion to dismiss Feldman’s complaint.

The lower court ruled for defendant Google.

Opinion:

The Court declared the internet contract valid and distinguished the Google “clickwrap” agreement from a "browsewrap" agreement, which allows a user to view the terms of the agreement, but does not require the user to take any affirmative action. Feldman was required to take affirmative action to complete the contract; at the bottom of the webpage, viewable without scrolling down, was a box and the words, “Yes, I agree to the above terms and conditions.”  Feldman had to have clicked on this box in order to proceed to the next step to complete his agreement with Google.

The Court further reasoned that although the contract didn’t contain a definite price, the contract contained the exact formula for computing the price. Furthermore, the Court rejected Feldman’s procedural unconscionability arguments because the “Plaintiff was a sophisticated purchaser, was not in any way pressured to agree to the AdWords Agreement, was capable of understanding the Agreement’s terms, consented to them, and could have rejected the Agreement with impunity.” Thus, the terms of the agreement were clear, reasonable and fair.

Affirmed for the defendant.