In 2000, in
Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com, the court looked at a
breach of contract claim where the terms and conditions were situated at the bottom of the home page in "
small print." The court ruled for the defendant in this case but did allow Ticketmaster to replead if there were facts showing that the defendant had knowledge of the terms and implicitly agreed to them. In 2002, in
Specht v. Netscape, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals looked at the enforceability of a browse-wrap contract entered into on the
Netscape website. In contrast, in 2014, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in
Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. that Barnes & Noble's 2011 Terms of Use agreement, presented in a browse-wrap manner via hyperlinks alone, was not enforceable since it failed to offer users reasonable notice of the terms. Similarly, in
In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada ruled against
Zappos.com's browsewrap terms of use, describing that its presentation was not prominent, and that no reasonable user would have read the agreement. In January 2026, in the case of
OCLC, Inc. v. Anna's Archive, federal district judge
Michael H. Watson issued a
default judgment in favor of OCLC, finding that Anna's Archive was bound by OCLC's terms delivered as browsewrap, and that Anna's Archive was a sophisticated party that accepted the terms by merely accessing the service. ==Summary==