La piattaforma di pagamenti Stripe chiede il consenso al trattamento dati con modalità “sign-in wrap”.
La corte del nord califormia ne esamina (brevemente) la validità ed è per la positiva (US Dis. C. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 28.07.2021, Case No.4:20–cv–08196–YGR, Silver e altri c. Stripe inc.).
Premessa: << Internet users can form online contract, and therefore consent, in a variety of ways. See Colgate v. JUUL Labs, Inc., 402 F. Supp. 3d 728, 763 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (discussing different forms of online contracts). The Ninth Circuit recognizes three main types of contracts formed on the internet: “clickwrap”, “browsewrap”, and “sign-in wrap” agreements. “Clickwrap” agreements require website users to click on an “I agree” box after they are presented with a list of terms and conditions. Id. “Browsewrap” agreements do not require the express consent, but instead operate by placing a hyperlink with the governing terms and conditions at the bottom of the website. Id. In “browsewrap” agreements, a user gives consent just by using the website. Id. “Sign-in-wrap” agreements are those that present a screen that states that acceptance of a separate agreement is
required before a user can access an internet product or service. Id.
The Ninth Circuit requires that online contracts put a website user on actual or inquiry notice of its terms. Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1177 (9th Cir. 2014). In doing so, the notice must be conspicuous, that is it must put “a reasonably prudent user on inquiry notice of the contracts.” Id. Whether a user has such inquiry notice “depends on the design and content of the website and the agreement’s webpage.” Id >>.
Il contratto allora è valido <<if a plaintiff is provided with an opportunity to review the terms of service in the form of a hyperlink,” and it is “sufficient to
require a user to affirmatively accept the terms, even if the terms are not presented on the same page as the acceptance button as long as the user has access to the terms of service.” Moretti v. Hertz Corp., No. C 13–02972 JSW, 2014 WL 1410432, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2014); In re Facebook Biometric Info. Priv. Litig., 185 F. Supp. 3d 1155, 1166 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (user agreement enforceable where user had to “take some action— a click of a dual-purpose box— from which assent might be inferred”). >>
Segue riproduzione di uno screenshot della schermata da cui appare chiaramente che l’intermediario è Stripe (Instacart) : l’acquirente non può allora in buona fede sostenere di aver pensato che l’unico contraente fosse il venditore (anzichè pure Stripe/Instacart).