A recent development in a class-action lawsuit against CuriosityStream, throws a spotlight on issues concerning the validity of consumer agreements to online ‘Terms of Use’. The suit contended that CuriosityStream engaged in unauthorized disclosure of users’ personally identifiable information to Facebook, allegedly in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act and California state law. The documentary streaming service moved for arbitration based on its Terms of Use agreement, however, the attempt was subsequently rejected by a federal judge in Maryland.
Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, while acknowledging that CuriosityStream demonstrated an agreement to arbitrate, highlighted ambiguity in whether users were clearly informed that clicking the ‘Sign up now’ button indicated agreement to CuriosityStream’s Terms of Use. The difficulty traverses around the interpretation of a hyperlink sentence concerning the Terms of Use which merely states, “By subscribing to Curiosity Stream, you agree that you’ve read our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy”. Gallagher held, “Nothing in that sentence expresses an agreement to the Terms of Use or Privacy Policy themselves, simply an agreement that they were read”.
Corporate law professionals keen on following developments in the enforcement of internet service providers’ terms and conditions and privacy policies may want to closely follow this case. For in-depth analysis of the judicial order, you may wish to consult the detailed report by Law.com.