Marianne Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc.

5 Citing briefs

  1. Cullinane et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Compel Arbitration and Stay, or in the Alternative, Dismiss Proceedings

    Filed May 4, 2015

    Holdings, Inc., Case No. 14-00596, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8799, at *21-22 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2015) (citing Nguyen, 763 F.3d at 1176). See also Ajemian, 83 Mass. App. Ct. at 574-575 (plaintiff is bound by terms of online contract if plaintiff is given reasonably conspicuous notice of the existence of contract terms and manifested assent to those terms). Consistent with basic principles of contract formation, courts nationwide have enforced agreements containing clear notice to the consumer that future use is subject to terms accessible by hyperlink and where the consumer must make an affirmative “click” to communicate assent before any further use.

  2. Emmanuel v. Handy Technologies, Inc.

    REPLY to Response to 8 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss Complaint

    Filed September 2, 2015

    Such logic does not apply to the click wrap agreements at issue here, which, by their nature, provide notice of the existence of contractual terms and give the party the opportunity to review such terms before affirmatively accepting them. See, e.g., Ajemian, 987 N.E.2d at 613. D.

  3. O'Connor et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed September 24, 2015

    (Footnote continued from previous page) Terms and Conditions was not prominently displayed”). See also Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc., 83 Mass. App. Ct. 565, 575 (2013) (where “the user was expected to follow a link to see the terms of the agreement . . . the record would need to contain information concerning the language that was used to notify users that the terms of their arrangement with [Defendant] could be found by following the link, how prominently displayed the link was, and any other information that would bear on the reasonableness of communicating the [terms of service] via a link”); Lavitman v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2015 WL 728187, *3 (Mass. Super. Jan. 26, 2015) (noting that where Defendant Uber sought to enforce an online contract “which the other party allegedly entered into by clicking something on an electronic screen . . . [it] has the burden of establishing, on undisputed facts, that the provisions of the contract were reasonably communicated and accepted” by the party to be bound…”) (internal citation omitted). 5 See Skirchak v. Dynamics Research Corp., 432 F. Supp. 2d 175, 180 (D. Mass. 2006), aff'd 508 F.3d 49 (

  4. Yucesoy v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed June 23, 2015

    (emphasis added); Harris v. comScore, Inc., 825 F. Supp. 2d 924, 927 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (acknowledging “the possibility that a click- through agreement is not enforceable if its terms are not reasonably apparent to the user” and refusing to enforce a forum selection clause where “the location of the license agreement was not readily apparent”); Hines v. Overstock.com, Inc., 668 F. Supp. 2d 362, 367 (E.D.N.Y. 2009), aff'd, 380 F. App'x 22 (2d Cir. 2010) (finding no reasonable communication and acceptance where “the website did not prompt her to review the Terms and Conditions and [] the link to the Terms and Conditions was not prominently displayed”). See also Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc., 83 Mass. App. Ct. 565, 575 (2013) (where “the user was expected to follow a link to see the terms of the agreement . . . the record would need to contain information concerning the language that was used to notify users that the terms of their arrangement with [Defendant] could be found by following the link, how prominently displayed the link was, and any other information that would bear on the reasonableness of communicating the [terms of service] via a link”); Lavitman v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2015 WL 728187, *3 (Mass. Super. Jan. 26, 2015) (noting that where Defendant Uber sought to enforce an online contract “which the other party allegedly entered into by clicking something on an electronic screen . . . [it] has the burden of establishing, on undisputed facts, that the provisions of the contract were reasonably communicated and accepted” by the party to be bound…”) (internal citation omitted). 9 See Skirchak v. Dynamics Research Corp., 432 F. Supp. 2d 175, 180 (D. Mass. 2006), aff'd 508 F.3d 49 (

  5. Yahoo!, Inc. v. Mymail, Ltd.

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Improper Venue

    Filed February 13, 2017

    3.  Neither the Yahoo! Toolbar Software License or the Terms of Service Were Reasonably Communicated to the Party Downloading the Yahoo! Toolbar ...................................................................................... 11  4.  MyMail’s Patent Infringement Claims Against Yahoo! Are Not Subject to the Forum Selection Clause in the Yahoo! Terms of Service .......................................................................................................... 14  B.  Venue of this Action in This District is Improper ................................................... 17  IV.  CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 18  Case 5:16-cv-07044-EJD Document 20 Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07044-EDJ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc., 987 N.E.2d 604 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013) ........................................................... 10, 11, 12, 13 Bense v. Interstate Battery System of America, 683 F.2d 718 (2d Cir. 1982) .............................................................................................. 15 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Merial, Ltd., No. 09-CV-212, 2010 WL 174078 (D. Conn. Jan. 14, 2010) ........................................... 16 Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Gov’t of Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2003) ......................................................................................... 9, 10 Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Saute, 111 S. Ct. 1522 (1991) ....................................................................................... 9, 11 ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., WL 1885256 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2015) ..................................................................... 14, 15 Crescent Intern., Inc. v. Avatar Communities, Inc., 857 F.2d 943 (3d Cir.