Editing Clickwrap (section)

===Cases in detail===
In ''[[Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc.]]'', 356 [[F.3d]] 393 ([[2d. Cir.]] 2004), the court described a clickwrap license, even though the license in question was distinguished from a clickwrap license
<blockquote>Essentially, under a clickwrap arrangement, potential licensees are presented with the proposed license terms and forced to expressly and unambiguously manifest either assent or rejection prior to being given access to the product.</blockquote>

An earlier case, ''[[Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.]]'', 150 [[F.Supp.2d]] 585 ([[S.D.N.Y.]] 2001), ''aff'd'', 306 [[F.3d]] 17 ([[2d. Cir.]] 2002), gave perhaps the clearest definition of a clickwrap license.
<blockquote>A click-wrap license presents the user with a message on his or her [[computer screen]], requiring that the user manifest his or her assent to the terms of the license agreement  by clicking on an [[Icon (computing)|icon]]. n12 The product cannot be obtained or used unless and until the icon is clicked. For example, when a user attempts to obtain [[Netscape]]'s Communicator or Navigator, a web page appears containing the full text of the Communicator / Navigator license agreement. Plainly visible on the screen is the query, "Do you accept all the terms of the preceding license agreement? If so, click on the Yes button. If you select No, Setup will close." Below this text are three button or icons: one labeled "Back" and used to return to an earlier step of the [[download]] preparation; one labeled "No," which if clicked, terminates the download; and one labeled "Yes," which if clicked, allows the download to proceed. Unless the user clicks "Yes," indicating his or her assent to the license agreement, the user cannot obtain the [[software]].</blockquote>

The clickwrap method was presented to the court in ''[[ProCD v. Zeidenberg]]'', 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), where Zeidenberg purchased a CD-ROM, created by ProCD, which contained a compilation of a telephone directory database. Upon purchase of this CD-ROM, Zeidenberg installed the software onto his computer then created a website which offered to visitors the information contained on the CD-ROM at a price less than what ProCD charged for the software. Prior to his purchase of the software, Zeidenberg may not have been aware of any prohibited use or dissemination of the product without consent by ProCD. However, upon preparing to install the software onto his computer, the software license appeared on his computer screen and would not allow him to continue with the installation without indicating acceptance by clicking his assent in a dialog box. The court held that Zeidenberg did accept the offer and the terms contained within the license by clicking through the dialog box.  Zeidenberg had the opportunity to read the terms of the license prior to clicking the acceptance box. The court further stated that Zeidenberg could have rejected the terms of the contract and returned the software. (''Id.'').<ref>[http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/7th/961139.html FindLaw Article]</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.loundy.com/CDLB/Zeidenberg.html |title='Shrink-wrap' licenses don't shrink access to data |first=David |last=Loundy |work=Chicago Daily Law Bulletin |date=February 8, 1996 |page=5}}</ref>

More recently, in the 2017 opinion Meyer v. Uber Technologies,<ref>{{cite web | url = https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2750/16-2750-2017-08-17.pdf?ts=1502980212 | title = Meyer v. Uber Technologies, Inc | publisher = United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit }}</ref> the Second Circuit of the United States Court of Appeal held that users were on fair notice of the arbitration provision in [[Uber|Uber's]] registration process, because Uber presented the app's terms of service via hyperlink.  "While it may be the case that many users will not bother reading the additional terms, that is the choice the user makes," Judge Chin wrote. "The user is still on inquiry notice."  The Court further held that "[w]hen considering the perspective of a reasonable smartphone user, we need not presume that the user has never before encountered an app or entered into a contract using a smartphone..." Instead, the Court explained that "[a] reasonable user would know that by clicking the registration button, he was agreeing to the terms and conditions accessible via the hyperlink, whether he clicked on the hyperlink or not."<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Meyer v. Uber Techs, Inc., Nos. 16-2750, 16-2752, 2017 WL 3526682 (2d Cir. Aug. 17, 2017)|url=https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2750/16-2750-2017-08-17.pdf?ts=1502980212|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200422061443/https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2750/16-2750-2017-08-17.pdf?ts=1502980212 |archive-date=2020-04-22 |access-date=|website=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Frankel|first=Alison|date=2017-08-17|title=2nd Circuit's Uber arbitration ruling huge win for app industry|language=en|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-uber-idUSKCN1AX2G6|access-date=2021-01-31}}</ref>