Vai al contenuto

Lorenzo Albertini

law blog: news di diritto civile, diritto commerciale e proprietà intellettuale

  • CONTATTI
  • MODULO PER EVENTUALI RICHIESTE

Articoli recenti

  • Il Tribunale UE sul giudizio di confondibilità tra marchi (sul caso Uniskin)
  • Sottosuolo condominiale presunto comune e potere/dovere dell’amministatore di compiere gli atti conservativi ex art. 1130 n. 4 cc
  • Il diritto di critica verso le sentenze può concretizzarsi in un giudizio anche molto negativo
  • Conciliazione lavorativa impugnata per violenza/minaccia
  • Diffamazione via Twitter

Commenti recenti

    Archivi

    • Febbraio 2023
    • Gennaio 2023
    • Dicembre 2022
    • Novembre 2022
    • Ottobre 2022
    • Settembre 2022
    • Agosto 2022
    • Luglio 2022
    • Giugno 2022
    • Maggio 2022
    • Aprile 2022
    • Marzo 2022
    • Febbraio 2022
    • Gennaio 2022
    • Dicembre 2021
    • Novembre 2021
    • Ottobre 2021
    • Settembre 2021
    • Agosto 2021
    • Luglio 2021
    • Giugno 2021
    • Maggio 2021
    • Aprile 2021
    • Marzo 2021
    • Febbraio 2021
    • Gennaio 2021
    • Dicembre 2020
    • Novembre 2020
    • Ottobre 2020
    • Settembre 2020
    • Luglio 2020
    • Giugno 2020
    • Maggio 2020
    • Aprile 2020
    • Marzo 2020
    • Febbraio 2020
    • Gennaio 2020
    • Dicembre 2019
    • Novembre 2019
    • Ottobre 2019
    • Settembre 2019
    • Agosto 2019
    • Giugno 2019
    • Maggio 2019
    • Aprile 2019
    • Febbraio 2019
    • Gennaio 2019
    • Dicembre 2018
    • Novembre 2018

    Categorie

    Meta

    • Accedi
    • Feed dei contenuti
    • Feed dei commenti
    • WordPress.org

    Consenso online al trattamento dati espresso nella modalità “sign-in wrap”

    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”).
    >>

    Nel caso specifico <<no dispute exists that Instacart utilized a “sign-in wrap” agreement. Instacart’s purchase checkout page required plaintiffs to agree to Instacart’s terms of service and privacy policy whenever they placed an order. Plaintiffs admit that they were presented with the checkout screen as they completed their Instacart orders. (FAC ¶¶ 59, 72, 84, 97, 110.)>>

    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).

    La cui policy sul punto è allora approvata: << The Court finds Instacart’s privacy policy conspicuous and obvious for several reasons. First, the hyperlink to the privacy policy is displayed in a bright green font against a white  background, which stands out from most of the surrounding text. Further, the hyperlink to the
    privacy policy is located close to the “place order” button, thus it is hard for a user placing an order to miss it. The bold font alerting consumers to the amount of the charge hold placed on their card calls additional attention to the area where Instacart’s privacy policy is located. There is nothing about the text that makes it inconspicuous or nonobvious.
    The Court finds that a reasonably prudent user would have been aware of Instacart’s privacy policy when placing an order. This finding comports with other courts that have found similar “sign-in wrap” agreements to be valid
    Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66, 75-76 (2d. Cir. 2017) (“the existence of the terms was reasonably communicated to the user”) (collecting cases); see also Peter v. DoorDash, Inc., 445 F. Supp. 3d 580, 587 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Based thereon, the Court finds that during checkout, plaintiffs were “provided with an opportunity to review the terms” of the privacy policy. Crawford v. Beachbody, LLC
    , No. 14cv1583– GPC(KSC), 2014 WL 6606563, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2014). They were required to take an affirmative step—clicking the “Place Order” button—to acknowledge that they were agreeing to the terms of the privacy policy. They were told the consequences that would follow from clicking the button, including their acceptance of the privacy policy. Plaintiffs decided to place an order after being made aware of the privacy policy. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs consented to Instacart’s privacy policy each time they placed an order. In re Facebook Biometric Info. Priv. Litig., 185 F. Supp. 3d at 1166 >>

    Scritto il 2 Agosto 20212 Agosto 2021Autore lorenzo.albertiniCategorie art. 7 GDPR Condizioni per il consensoTag “browsewrap”, “clickwrap”, and “sign-in wrap” agreements, consenso al trattamento dati

    Navigazione articoli

    Precedente Articolo precedente: Tutela europea di modello parziale (partial design)
    Successivo Articolo successivo: Contraffazione di marchio denominativo nelle vendite online
    Proudly powered by WordPress