online terms – internetcases – Attorney Evan Brown

April 1, 2026 Contracts, Social Media

New Jersey court sends OKLegal.com suit against Meta to California

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey transferred OKLegal.com’s lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. and Mark Zuckerberg to the Northern District of California under Instagram’s forum-selection clause.

Plaintiff OKLegal.com sued defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. and defendant Mark Zuckerberg after Instagram indefinitely banned its account, (1) alleging the ban violated the First Amendment, (2) seeking a declaration that Section 230 is unconstitutional, and (3) asserting tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship.

Plaintiff asked court to keep the case in New Jersey and deny defendants’ request to enforce the Instagram Terms of Use forum-selection clause, while also opposing defendants’ alternative request to dismiss the complaint.

The court’s ruling

The court granted defendants’ motion in part by transferring the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). It denied the remainder of the motion without prejudice, allowing defendants to raise their dismissal arguments in California.

Reasoning for the transfer

The court found plaintiff could have brought the action in the Northern District of California because Meta’s principal place of business and Zuckerberg’s residence are located there. It also found plaintiff agreed to Instagram’s Terms of Use when creating and using the account, and that those terms required non-arbitrated claims to be litigated exclusively in the Northern District of California or a state court in San Mateo County. The court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the clause was unenforceable as clickwrap, adhesive, unconscionable, or contrary to public policy, concluding plaintiff failed to show that relevant public-interest factors overwhelmingly disfavored transfer.

OkLegal.com v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2026 WL 850812 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2026)

February 5, 2024 Contracts

Online retailer’s browsewrap agreement was not enforceable

browsewrap

Plaintiff sued defendant Urban Outfitters under California law over the way that the retailer routed messages sent using the company’s website. Defendant moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the terms and conditions on defendant’s website required plaintiff to submit to arbitration instead of going to court. The court denied the motion.

The key issue in the case was whether plaintiff, by completing her purchases on defendant’s website, was sufficiently notified of and thus agreed to the arbitration agreement embedded via hyperlinks on the checkout page. Defendant maintained that the language and placement of the hyperlinks on the order page were adequate to inform plaintiff of the arbitration terms, which she implicitly agreed to by finalizing her purchases. Plaintiff argued that the hyperlinks were not conspicuous enough to alert her to the arbitration terms, thus negating her consent to them.

The court looked at the nature of the online agreement and whether plaintiff had adequate notice of the arbitration agreement, thereby consenting to its terms. The court’s discussion touched upon the differences between “clickwrap” and “browsewrap” agreements, emphasizing that the latter, which defendant’s website purportedly used, often fails to meet the threshold for constructive notice due to the lack of explicit acknowledgment required from the user.

The court examined the specifics of what constitutes sufficient notice, pointing out that for a user to be on inquiry notice, the terms must be presented in a way that a reasonable person would notice and understand that their actions (such as clicking a button) indicate agreement to those terms. The court found that defendant’s method of presenting the arbitration terms – through hyperlinks in small, grey font that were not sufficiently set apart from surrounding text – did not meet this standard.

Rocha v. Urban Outfitters, 2024 WL 393486 (N.D. Cal., February 1, 2024)

Click to Agree: Online clickwrap agreements steered bank lawsuit to arbitration

online terms and conditions

Plaintiffs sued their bank alleging various claims under state law. The bank moved to compel arbitration based on various online clickwrap agreements plaintiffs had entered into.

One of the clickwrap agreements required plaintiffs to scroll through the entire agreement and then click an “Acknowledge” button before continuing to the next step. Citing to the case of Meyer v. Uber, 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017), the court observed that “[c]ourts routinely uphold clickwrap agreements for the principal reason that the user has affirmatively assented to the terms of agreement by clicking ‘I agree.'”

Similarly, for the other relevant agreements, plaintiffs were required to click a box acknowledging that they agreed to those agreements before they could obtain access to digital products. Again, citing to the Meyer case: “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.” By affirmatively clicking the acknowledgement, plaintiffs manifested their assent to the terms of the these agreements.

Curtis v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2024 WL 283474 (S.D.N.Y., January 25, 2024)