As internet marketing continues to increase at an astonishing rate, so too could legal actions that result from vague terms of agreements between merchants and consumers. Recent federal court cases have indicated that poorly drawn out internet contracts can lead to the nullification of arbitration provisions and class action prohibitions, therefore giving consumers an advantage in legal disputes with vendors.

Contract terms must be conspicuous and clear, but the problem is that states differ on what makes terms conspicuous enough in a contract.

Ballard Spahr Partner Mark Levin noted, "Different courts define the standard in different ways, but they will all boil down to the principle that the arbitration clause – and the links to the clause – must be clearly presented to the consumer in order for there to be a meeting of the minds – in other words, an acceptance – of the arbitration clause." Levin added, "Even if there was a U.S. Supreme Court decision, or legislation that defined a single standard, there would still be a need to apply that standard to unique facts in virtually every case."

Read the full article here. Subscription may be required.

People

Related Practice