Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.

306 F.3d 17 (2nd Cir. 2002), 306 F.2d 17, 48 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 761 (2002), 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002), 306 F.2d 17, 48 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 761 (2002), 150 F.Supp.2d 585 (2001)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...

Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

306 F.3d 17 (2nd Cir. 2002), 306 F.2d 17, 48 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 761 (2002), 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002), 306 F.2d 17, 48 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 761 (2002), 150 F.Supp.2d 585 (2001)

Play video

Facts

Netscape Communications Corp. (Netscape) provided two separate software programs known as “Communicator” and “SmartDownload.” When internet users downloaded these programs, the programs tracked the users’ internet usage and displayed advertisements relevant to their usage. Before downloading Communicator, all users were required to view and accept a license spelling out these terms of use. The license automatically displayed on the computer screens of everyone who attempted to download Communicator. However, a similar license did not appear on the screens of those who attempted to download SmartDownload. Rather, users just saw a button that said “download” and invited them to click to download the program. A link to the license agreement for SmartDownload could be viewed by users who scrolled down their screens below the “download” button. However, this link was not automatically visible to users who did not scroll down. Both license agreements for Communicator and SmartDownload contained arbitration clauses. Five Netscape users (plaintiffs) all downloaded both Communicator and SmartDownload. They agreed to the license agreement for Communicator but were unaware of, and thus did not agree to, the license agreement for SmartDownload. If they had clicked on the license link for SmartDownload, they would have been presented with a screen telling them that by downloading the product, they were agreeing to be bound by the terms of the license agreement. The five Netscape users and a website operator named Christopher Specht (plaintiffs) brought suit against Netscape in federal district court on the ground that the SmartDownload software was a violation of privacy and electronic “eavesdropping” statutes. Netscape moved to compel arbitration under the terms of the license agreements. The Netscape users argued that they should not be bound by the arbitration clause for the SmartDownload contract because the license for that product was not visible to a reasonable internet user. The district court agreed and held that they were not bound by the SmartDownload license agreement. The court also said that even though the Netscape users had agreed to the Communicator license agreement, that agreement did not bind them to arbitrate their claims involving SmartDownload. Netscape appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sotomayor, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 516,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 516,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 516,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,300 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership