Editing Clickwrap (section)

===United States===
{{see also|In the Matter of Sears Holdings Management Corporation}}

Few cases have considered the validity of clickwrap licenses. Still, in the cases that have challenged their validity, the terms of the contract have usually been upheld:
*''Feldman v. Google, Inc.'', 513 F.Supp.2d 229 (E.D.Pa. 2007) (upholding forum-selection clause)
*''In re RealNetworks, Inc. Privacy Litigation'', No. No. 00-1366, 2000 WL 631341 (D. Ill. May 8, 2000) (upholding an arbitration clause)
* ''Hotmail Corp. v. Van$ Money Pie'', No. 98-20064, 1998 WL 388389 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 1998) (granting [[preliminary injunction]] for alleged breach of [[contract]] for violating the [[terms of service]] by using a [[Hotmail]] account to send [[e-mail spam|spam]] or [[pornography]]). The court said that clicking the clickwrap button after notice gave consent.
* ''I. Lan Sys., Inc. v. Netscout Serv. Level Corp.'', 183 F. Supp. 2d 328, 336 (D. Mass. 2002) (upholding a clickwrap agreement on two grounds: first, clickwrap is simply "Money now, terms later" contract formation; second, the court found that the "additional terms" of the clickwrap license was not material under [[Uniform Commercial Code|UCC]] (§207(2)(b)).
*''Caspi v. Microsoft, LLC'', held a forum selection clause in an online membership agreement was consented to when the user clicked the "I agree" symbol of the agreement in order to proceed with registration.
*In ''A.V., et al. v iParadigms, LLC'', Judge Claude M. Hilton granted summary judgment on the students' complaint in favor of iParadigms/[[Turnitin]], because they had accepted the click-wrap agreement on the Turnitin website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hilton |first=Claude |year=2008 |title=Memorandum Opinion |url=http://www.iparadigms.com/iParadigms_03-11-08_Opinion.pdf |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100705110536/http://www.iparadigms.com/iParadigms_03-11-08_Opinion.pdf |archivedate=2010-07-05 |publisher=United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division}}<!-- also found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2355720/iParadigms-031108-Opinion --></ref>

Even though courts have ruled some clickwrap licenses to be enforceable contracts, it does not follow that every term of every clickwrap license is enforceable. Clickwrap licenses must still meet the criteria for enforceability of a unilateral form contract. For example, see ''[[Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc.]]'', 487 F.Supp.2d 593 (E.D. Pa. 2007), in which the judge found certain aspects of the ''[[Second Life]]'' clickwrap agreement "[[Unconscionability|unconscionable]], and therefore unenforceable".<ref>{{cite web | url = http://pub.bna.com/eclr/064925_053007.pdf }}</ref>{{dead link|date=January 2025}}