Intellectual Property Law

Court Upholds The Validity Of A Clickwrap Agreement Entered Into With Minors

By IBLS Editor

In a recent decision, A.V. v. iParadigms, Civ. Act. No. 07-0293 E.D. Va., March 11, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that the clickwrap agreement to which the plaintiffs assented when submitting their papers to the plagiarism-detecting program, ?TurnItIn?, was valid and enforceable, despite the fact that the plaintiffs were minors at the time of entering into such agreement.

TurnItIn is a plagiarism detection program. Papers submitted through TurnItIn are compared with other papers and sources found in the Turnitin.com database, providing teachers with an assessment of the originality of the submitted papers. Students using TurnItIn must sign a user agreement pursuant to their use of the Website. Failure to consent to this agreement will bar students from submitting their papers through TurnItIn.com, which can compromise their chances of receiving a passing grade.

A number of Virginia and Arizona high school students filed suit against iParadigms, the provider of TurnItIn, claiming that the program infringes upon students? copyrights in their respective papers, and that the clickwrap agreement to which the students must consent as part of the registration process is invalid.

While the copyright infringement question garnered prolific media attention, an equally relevant and less publicized legal question concerned the validity of the clickwrap agreement. With respect to this claim, the students claimed that the TurnItIn agreement was unenforceable in accordance with the Virginia law, which stipulates that a contract entered into by a minor is voidable once the minor reaches the age of majority. While the court did not contradict this doctrine, it nevertheless held that because the students derived benefits from the TurnItIn contract, they were also bound by its limitations and prohibitions. Received benefits cited by the court included the students? ability to receive grades from their teachers, thereby providing an opportunity to maintain good standing in their classes, as well as the students? ability to bring this lawsuit.

iParadigms filed a counterclaim against the students, seeking indemnification for commencing this action, which was against the ?Usage Policy? found at the bottom of every page of the TurnItIn Website. However, the court dismissed this counterclaim since this Usage Policy was not brought directly to the students? attention and because the original contract between the parties stated that it constituted the ?entire agreement? between them. Therefore, the court concluded that it was reasonable to assume that the students would not consider the terms of the Usage Policy when bringing their lawsuit.

Teachers who use TurnItIn specifically ask their students to submit papers for their classes through Turnitin.com. In order to submit the papers, students must complete an online registration process, which is very similar to signing up for an e-mail account. After receiving an ID and a password, students wishing to use the Website must click on an ?I agree? button, signifying their assent to the TurnItIn User Agreement.

As noted by the court in this case, ?The first line of the Clickwrap Agreement, which appears directly above the ?I Agree? link, states: ?TurnitIn and its services ? are offered to you, the user conditioned on your acceptance without modification of the terms, conditions, and notices contained herein?. An additional relevant clause was the stipulation in the clickwrap agreement that iParadigms ?will not be liable for any damages ?arising out of the use of this Web site.? The court interpreted the above language to preclude the plaintiffs from seeking damages pursuant to their use of TurnItIn.

Professor Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University School of Law noted the significance of the court?s decision with respect to the question of the voidability of Website agreements with minors. Until this decision, Goldman notes, there seemed to be ?a large class action hole against all [W]ebsites with minors as users.? He further adds that: ?[t]hat hole may still exist ? it depends on whether the contract is complete or not, and in many cases both parties will have incomplete obligations in a standard [W]ebsite [End User License Agreement].? Nevertheless, the A.V. v. iParadigms case created an important precedent in terms of the question of validity of online contracts entered into with minors.

Full post as published by IBLS Internet Law Blog on September 29, 2008 (boomark / email).