A clickwrap contract is a type of contract that is widely used in software licenses and online transactions and in which a user must agree to the terms and conditions before they can use the product or service. Although the courts have classified some Clickwrap licenses as binding contracts, it does not follow that every term of each Clickwrap license is enforceable. Clickwrap licenses must continue to meet the applicability criteria of a unilateral forms contract. See, for example, Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., 487 F.Supp.2d 593 (E.D. Pa. 2007), in which the judge concluded that certain aspects of the Second Life Clickwrap agreement did not exist „unscrupulous and therefore unenforceable”.  Feldman argued that he was a victim of „click fraud,” in which companies or individuals with no interest in the advertised services repeatedly click on advertisements. As a result, advertising costs are driven up. Essentially, under a clickwrap contract, potential licensees are confronted with the proposed license terms and are required to explicitly and unambiguously manifest your vote or rejection before accessing the product. If it is necessary to defend a clickwrap agreement in court, the company that issued the contract must have sufficient documents to prove when and where the contract was signed. This includes an indisputable record of the version of the contract displayed at the time of signing the contract and what the website looked like for the user.
On February 18, Ken Slade and Jorge Contreras of Hale and Dorr LLP addressed the Massachusetts Software & Internet Council on the topic „Creating Enforceable Click Through End-User Agreements, Both National and International.” Ken and Jorge reviewed the applicability of these agreements law (and the shrink film agreements that preceded them), recommended a four-step strategy to improve law enforcement in the United States, examined various specific international considerations that affect the applicability of these agreements, and proposed a three-step process to maximize the chances of implementing click-through agreements in various countries. That is what we are opposed to. Bragg had bought many plots of land in his second life, including a virtual property called „Taesot” for $300. Linden sent Bragg an email telling him that Taesot had been improperly purchased through a „exploit” and Linden abducted Taesot accordingly. He then froze Bragg`s account and confiscated all the virtual goods and currency he kept in his account with Second Life. Your click agreements should be digestible to the average person. Although a viewer observing the transactions at issue in the present case would have seen that each of the user`s applicants had clicked on the SmartDownload button `Download` … a consumer`s click on a download button does not give his consent under the contract if the offer does not clearly indicate to the consumer that clicking on the download button would mean acceptance of those conditions. […] California customary law is clear that „a bidder, regardless of the obvious manifestation of its consent, is not bound by discrete contractual provisions of which it is not sure, which are contained in a document whose contractual nature is not obvious.” It was for the court to determine whether the plaintiffs had agreed to be bound by the software license agreement.
However, there are a number of legal cases that have established the validity of clickwrap methods, and they all define different requirements and nuances of using clickwrap. The clickwrap example above was not entirely correct for one important reason. They had a checkbox to accept, but they didn`t link to their terms or clearly post their terms Here`s an example of what a clear clickwrap deal should look like Drupal.org: First, make sure your customers have shown your consent to your consent by using a checkbox or the „I agree” button, to be accepted.. .