Because it bases its assesments on job title, location and industry, LinkedIn’s new Salary feature might be more accurate than are other online compensation estimation tools.

States are trying to pass laws that balance bereaved people’s desire to access their deceased loved ones’ social media accounts with the privacy interests of the account holders and

CaptureThe latest issue of our Socially Aware newsletter is now available here.

In this issue of Socially Aware, our Burton Award winning guide to the law and business of social media, we discuss the impact online trolls are having on social media marketing; we revisit whether hashtags should be afforded trademark protection; we

ContentGraphic_SmallWe’re in the midst of a seismic shift in how companies interact with user-generated content (UGC).

For years, companies were happy simply to host UGC on their websites, blogs and social media pages and reap the resulting boost to their traffic numbers. And U.S. law—in the form of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright

Welcome to New Jersey state concept on road sign

If your company is involved in selling products or services to consumers in New Jersey over the web or through mobile apps, you’ll want to read this blog post.

In what amounts to a feeding frenzy, plaintiffs’ lawyers are working overtime bringing class action suits against e-commerce companies, alleging that their online terms and conditions violate New Jersey’s unusual Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”). Some of the online retailers to have been sued include Victoria’s Secret, Bed Bath & Beyond and TOYS ‘R’ US, with more suits being filed every day.

Unlike most consumer protection laws, the TCCWNA focuses specifically on the contractual terms governing certain transactions with consumers, imposing limitations on such terms even if such contractual terms are governed by the law of a state other than New Jersey—creating a potential gotcha for e-tailers who are based outside of New Jersey and who traditionally have their online terms and conditions reviewed only by lawyers admitted to practice in the state whose laws govern such terms and conditions.

Although the TCCWNA was enacted in 1981, it has only recently achieved notoriety, as more and more plaintiffs’ lawyers have embraced the statute due to its broad scope and its statutory penalty of not less than $100 per violation without the need to prove actual harm.

Overview of the TCCWNA

 New Jersey adopted the TCCWNA over 30 years ago not to create new rights for consumers, but rather to “bolster[] rights and responsibilities established by other laws,” particularly those established by New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”). Observers have noted that the number of TCCWNA cases has been increasing in the last few years, particularly since 2013 when the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Shelton v. Restaurant.com, Inc. found that online certificates or coupons were subject to TCCWNA rules and opened the door to TCCWNA class actions stemming from e-commerce.

The TCCWNA applies where a company is a “seller, lessor, creditor, lender or bailee,” offering its services to a “consumer” or “prospective consumer” in New Jersey. A “consumer,” under the TCCWNA, is defined as “any individual who buys, leases, borrows, or bails any money, property or service which is primarily for personal, family or household purposes.” Indeed, courts have emphasized that the TCCWNA is inapplicable unless the plaintiffs are consumers.

The text of the TCCWNA prohibits three types of provisions in consumer contracts, warranties, notices and signs.

First, it prohibits provisions violating “clearly established” legal rights of a consumer or responsibilities of a seller, lessor, creditor, lender or bailee. These rights and responsibilities may arise from federal or state law. For example, one court found that provisions restricting limitations periods for initiating lawsuits, asserting counterclaims or raising affirmative defenses violate consumers’ rights under federal and New Jersey procedural rules.

Second, the TCCWNA prohibits provisions waiving a consumer’s rights under the TCCWNA. In Johnson v. Wynn’s Extended Care, Inc., for example, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a provision in a service contract that prevented the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs constituted a waiver of a consumer’s rights under the TCCWNA, and was therefore prohibited.

Note, however, that at least two cases have found that a claim under the TCCWNA cannot be based merely upon an omission. As one court noted, the statute’s use of the term “includes” suggests that only a statement affirmatively “included” in the consumer contract, warranty, notice or sign should give rise to liability; in addition, the legislative history does not include any examples of an omission triggering liability.

Third, the TCCWNA prohibits blanket “inapplicable in some jurisdictions” savings clauses (e.g., phrased “void where prohibited”)—though, notably, it does not prohibit such savings clauses in any warranty. In order for a savings clause to be acceptable under the TCCWNA, the statute requires the clause to specify which provisions, if any, are unenforceable in New Jersey.

In one recent case, Martinez-Santiago v. Public Storage, the following language was found to be in violation of the TCCWNA’s prohibition against overly broad savings clauses: “If any provision of this [agreement] shall be invalid or prohibited under [the law of the state where the applicable premises are located], such provision shall be ineffective only to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity, without invalidating the remainder of such provision or the remaining provisions.”

Certain courts, however, have refused to find such a violation of the TCCWNA when the consumer contract, notice or sign is only available within New Jersey, or when the clause uses the alternative “to the extent permitted by law” phrasing, as discussed below.

TCCWNA’s Potential Danger to Online Companies

The TCCWNA is potentially dangerous for companies operating online for at least three reasons.

First, plaintiffs’ lawyers are pushing for an extremely broad application of the statute. They argue that the TCCWNA applies to almost every company providing consumer products online that are available to New Jersey residents, and to any “written consumer contract” and “written consumer warranty, notice or sign” made available to these residents—presumably encompassing nearly all material displayed or offered by a company online.

Second, as noted above, the TCCWNA may expose companies located outside of New Jersey (but whose online websites can be accessed within the state) to claims stemming from any applicable “clearly established” federal or New Jersey state right or responsibility, effectively requiring companies based outside of New Jersey to develop expertise on all potentially applicable New Jersey laws (even if their website terms of use purport to be governed by another state’s laws and have been carefully drafted and reviewed by lawyers admitted to practice in such state).

Think about it: If every state had a law similar to the TCCWNA, every e-tailer would need to have its online Terms of Use reviewed by as many as 50 different lawyers. The result would essentially be a full employment act for attorneys across the country.

Third, the TCCWNA is potentially dangerous for companies because it provides an “aggrieved consumer” with the option to seek recovery of a civil penalty of not less than $100. This means the penalties in class actions—especially the penalties in class actions over online terms and conditions—could add up quickly. The text of the statute also allows for actual damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs in addition to the civil penalty, and further states that such remedies are cumulative and do not preclude recovery available under other laws.

Some Guidance for Online Companies From Emerging TCCWNA Case Law

Because claims arguing that online terms and conditions violate the TCCWNA have been filed only recently, there is only sparse guidance from the courts on how online companies selling into New Jersey can protect against these lawsuits.

Moreover, any such company, if it has not already done so, should promptly contact New Jersey counsel for advice on how to ensure its online terms and conditions are compliant with the TCCWNA.

With those important caveats in mind, recent court decisions applying the TCCWNA do highlight some potential precautionary measures for website operators.

For example, as a first line of defense, it may be prudent for companies to include, and seek to bolster the enforceability of, an arbitration provision and a related class action waiver clause in their online terms and conditions. As an example, in one TCCWNA case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey indicated that an arbitration provision would have been enforceable if it had clearly and unambiguously notified the consumer that she was waiving her statutory right to seek relief in the court of law. While there is no prescribed wording for a valid arbitration provision, one New Jersey court found the following arbitration notice to be acceptable:

The parties to this agreement agree to arbitrate any claim, dispute, or controversy, including all statutory claims and any state or federal claims, that may arise out of or relating to the [subject matter of the agreement]. By agreeing to arbitration, the parties understand and agree that they are waiving their rights to maintain other available resolution processes, such as a court action or administrative proceeding, to settle their disputes.

As a second line of defense, it may be prudent for companies, working with New Jersey counsel, to review and potentially revise their online contracts, warranties and notices in light of TCCWNA cases to date. One approach suggested by existing TCCWNA case law is that businesses can avoid violating the TCCWNA’s prohibition on blanket “inapplicable in some jurisdictions” savings clauses by using different language in their savings clauses to achieve the same result. As noted above, the text of the TCCWNA prohibits savings clauses that state that certain terms “may be void, unenforceable or inapplicable in some jurisdictions” if such clauses do not identify which terms are or are not void, unenforceable or inapplicable in New Jersey. In Kendall v. CubeSmart L.P., however, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey found that companies could use savings clauses that “attempt…to conform to New Jersey law.” Citing several cases, it held that the phrases “to the extent permitted by law,” “in the manner permitted by applicable law,” “allowed by applicable law” and “or as otherwise permitted by applicable law” were acceptable in savings clauses under the TCCWNA.


Continue Reading Controversial New Jersey Consumer Protection Law Creates a Potential “Gotcha” for E-Commerce Companies

04_21_Apr_SociallyAware_v6_Page_01The latest issue of our Socially Aware newsletter is now available here.

In this issue of Socially Aware, our Burton Award winning guide to the law and business of social media. In this edition, we discuss what a company can do to help protect the likes, followers, views, tweets and shares that constitute

Many of my clients ask how they can best ensure that their websites’ terms of use are enforceable. Is it really necessary to require the website’s users to check a box or click a button manifesting affirmative assent? In this portion of my video on website terms of use, I explain what the courts have

As a social media lawyer, I work closely with website operators and other clients to help reduce the risk of liability that can arise from doing business online. One of the key ways to minimize online legal risks is to use a carefully drafted online Terms of Use agreement. In my new video below, I

03_21_Signs_Today’s companies compete not only for dollars but also for likes, followers, views, tweets, comments and shares. “Social currency,” as some researchers call it, is becoming increasingly important and companies are investing heavily in building their social media fan bases. In some cases, this commitment of time, money and resources has resulted in staggering success. Coca-Cola, for example, has amassed over 96 million likes on its Facebook page and LEGO’s YouTube videos have been played over 2 billion times.

With such impressive statistics, there is no question that a company’s social media presence and the associated pages and profiles can be highly valuable business assets, providing an important means for disseminating content and connecting with customers. But how much control does a company really have over these social media assets? What recourse would be available if a social media platform decided to delete a company’s page or migrate its fans to another page?

The answer may be not very much. Over the past few years, courts have repeatedly found in favor of social media platforms in a number of cases challenging the platforms’ ability to delete or suspend accounts and to remove or relocate user content.

Legal Show-Downs on Social Media Take-Downs

In a recent California case, Lewis v. YouTube, LLC, the plaintiff Jan Lewis’s account was removed by YouTube due to allegations that she artificially inflated view counts in violation of YouTube’s Terms of Service. YouTube eventually restored Lewis’s account and videos but not the view counts or comments that her videos had generated prior to the account’s suspension.

Lewis sued YouTube for breach of contract, alleging that YouTube had deprived her of her reasonable expectations under the Terms of Service that her channel would be maintained and would continue to reflect the same number of views and comments. She sought damages as well as specific performance to compel YouTube to restore her account to its original condition.

The court first held that Lewis could not show damages due to the fact that the YouTube Terms of Service contained a limitation of liability provision that disclaimed liability for any omissions relating to content. The court also held that Lewis was not entitled to specific performance because there was nothing in the Terms of Service that required YouTube to maintain particular content or to display view counts or comments. Accordingly, the court affirmed dismissal of Lewis’s complaint.

In a similar case, Darnaa LLC v. Google, Inc., Darnaa, a singer, posted a music video on YouTube. Again, due to allegations of view count inflation, YouTube removed and relocated the video to a different URL, disclosing on the original page that the video had been removed for violating its Terms of Service. Darnaa sued for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, interference with prospective economic advantage and defamation. In an email submitted with the complaint, Darnaa’s agent explained that she had launched several large campaigns (each costing $250,000 to $300,000) to promote the video and that the original link was already embedded in thousands of websites and blogs. Darnaa sought damages as well as an injunction to prevent YouTube from removing the video or changing its URL.

The court dismissed all of Darnaa’s claims because YouTube’s Terms of Service require lawsuits to be filed within one year and Darnaa had filed her case too late. In its discussion, however, the court made several interesting points. In considering whether YouTube’s Terms of Service were unconscionable, the court held that, although the terms are by nature a “contract of adhesion,” the level of procedural unconscionability was slight, since the plaintiff could have publicized her videos on a different website. Further, in ruling that the terms were not substantively unconscionable, the court pointed out that “[b]ecause YouTube offers its hosting services free of charge, it is reasonable for YouTube to retain broad discretion over [its] services.”

Although the court ultimately dismissed Darnaa’s claims based on the failure to timely file the suit, the decision was not a complete victory for YouTube. The court granted leave to amend to give Darnaa the opportunity to plead facts showing that she was entitled to equitable tolling of the contractual limitations period. Therefore, the court went on to consider whether Darnaa’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim. Among other things, the court held that YouTube’s Terms of Service were ambiguous regarding the platform’s rights to remove and relocate user videos in its sole discretion. Thus, the court further held that if Darnaa were able to amend the complaint to avoid the consequences of the failure to timely file, then the complaint would be sufficient to state a claim for breach of the contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing.


Continue Reading How to Protect Your Company’s Social Media Currency