Feldman v. Google, Inc.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Feldman v. Google, Inc. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Decided | March 29, 2007 |
| Citation | 513 F.Supp.2d 229 |
| Holding | |
| An online clickwrap license is an enforceable contact if both sides have been given reasonable opportunity to review and agree to the terms. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | James T. Giles |
| Keywords | |
| United States contract law, Forum selection clause | |
Feldman v. Google, Inc., 513 F.Supp.2d 229 (E.D. Pa. 2007), was a ruling at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.[1] The case has become a defining precedent on the enforceability of clickwrap agreements for Internet services.
Lawrence E. Feldman, a lawyer, bought advertising services from Google via that company's AdWords program. Each time an Internet user searched for a word that had been purchased by Feldman, they would receive his ad and Feldman would be charged whenever someone clicked on his ad. When setting up the service, Feldman agreed to Google's clickwrap license, and acknowledged that the first few paragraphs of the agreement had been visible on his computer screen, while the rest could be seen by scrolling down.[1]
After using the AdWords service for a time, Feldman claimed that he was the victim of click fraud when pranksters clicked on his ads repeatedly, causing him to incur charges when they were not potential customers of his law practice. Feldman believed that this caused his advertising efforts to become unexpectedly expensive.[1]
Feldman filed suit at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claiming that 20-30% of the clicks for which he was charged were fraudulent, and that Google had failed to prevent that fraud. Also, Feldman claimed that he had not been given an opportunity to negotiate any of the terms in the agreement, and that the pricing information was inaccurate and insufficient. Thus, Feldman argued that the clickwrap license was not a reasonable contract per American contract law.[1]
Google sought to have the case moved to a California court, due to the forum selection clause in the same agreement to which Feldman agreed.[1]
