La corte suprema del Maine ritiene non concluso il contratto on-line di modifica delle condizioni generali originarie: modifica volta ad introdurre una pattuizione di arbitrato.
Si tratta di MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT del 27.01.20222, Decision: 2022 ME 8, docket: Cum-21-117 , Sarchi v. Uber.
La corte inizia con un un’interessante esposizione dei quattro quattro tipi di conclusione on line (browsewrap, clickwrap, scrollwrap, and sign–in wrap; p. 11 ss ai §§ 18 ss).
Afferma poi che il contratto sub iudice è <<characterized as a sign-in wrap agreement because, rather than requiring an affirmative manifestation of assent by the user, it informs the user that she is assenting to the Terms by creating an Uber rider account>>. Ricorda però che la modalità è diversa per i drivers: <<in contrast, Uber’s registration process for drivers involves a clickwrap agreement in which the user must affirmatively signify agreement with the terms.>> (§ 30).
Ricorda ancora che deve esserci stata sia la notifica della modifica che la sua accettazione (two step inquiry; § 25 ss) .
Nel caso de quo, infine, è però mancata già la notifica (reasonable notice): << The first step focuses on whether a user had reasonable notice of the online contract terms “consider[ing] the perspective of a reasonably prudent . . . user” of online technology. Meyer, 868 F.3d at 75, 77 …. Whether an interface provides reasonable notice of the terms of an online contract does not necessarily turn on the classification of the agreement as a scrollwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, or sign-in wrap agreement; rather, it is essentially a function of how likely the terms and conditions themselves, or a hyperlink to them, are to come to the attention of the reasonably prudent user. [¶27] The requirement of reasonable notice is necessarily satisfied if the user has actual notice of the terms, either by reviewing them or by otherwise interacting with them, such as by having to scroll through them. See Kauders, 159 N.E.3d at 1049>>
In particolare il problema sta nel rinvio ad altra pagina tramite hyper link, troppo poco visibile: <<all of the observations about the Uber registration interface for riders in Cullinane and Kauders that led those courts to decide that Uber had not provided reasonable notice of its terms apply fully here. The appearance of the hyperlink to the Terms, specifically the lack of underlining and the muted gray coloring, means that it is not obviously identifiable as a hyperlink. The sequence in which it appears during the registration process renders it less likely to draw the user’s attention. Its placement on the screen, particularly in light of the more prominent features on the same page, renders it relatively inconspicuous. Based on the totality of the features of the Uber interface that Sarchi utilized in registering—the focus on entering payment information rather than on the Terms; the small, lowercase font in which the notice and the Terms appeared; and the lightly outlined box containing the link to the Terms that did not have the appearance of a hyperlink or a clickable button—we conclude that the Uber interface Sarchi used to register failed to provide a prudent user with reasonable notice of the Terms. >>
Conclude osservando che, anche ritenendo perfetta la notifica, sarebbe comunque assente un’adeguata manifestazione di assenso: ciò per la non sufficientemente limpida serie di passaggi (pulsanti da premere sullo schermo) allo scopo predisposti da Uber, § 37 ss.
Sentenza dettagliata ed interessante anche per eventuali liti nel ns. ordinamento.
(notizia e link dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman)