Abusive Terms of Use (ToU): A Comparative Study of Common Law and Iranian Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Professor, University of Tehran

2 Ph.D. Candidate in Private law University of Tehran

3 PhD Student in Private Law, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

10.22034/law.2023.50683.3103

Abstract

In today’s world, it would certainly be difficult to do without services of electronic systems. Making use of these apparently free services will come at the cost of complying with terms and conditions which have already been drafted by authors of the mentioned systems as a result of a great deal of effort and possibly in consultation with lawyers. Accordingly, in case users were aware of the mentioned terms, they either have never used them, or at least would have been reluctant to do so. On that account, the present article seeks to deal with the query as to the ideal way to deal with the imposition of unfair terms and ways to minimize its disadvantages while enjoying benefits of these terms. We advocate the thesis that a composite approach, which curbs and restricts these terms in the most efficient way possible, is the ideal way to protect rights of users as the weaker party. Therefore, in the present article, using comparative and analytical-library method, we shall examine, in three sections, methods of conclusion and contents of these terms and the proposed ways of dealing with them.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. الف) منابع فارسی

    - کتاب

    1. ایزانلو، محسن (1393). شروط محدودکننده و ساقط‌کنندة مسئولیت در قراردادها، تهران: سهامی انتشار.

    - مقاله‌ها

    1. السان، مصطفی (1385). بررسی تعیین قانون حاکم بر قراردادهای الکترونیک. پژوهش حقوق عمومی، 8(19)، 171-139.
    2. ایرانپور، فرهاد (1381). شناسایی یا انکار اصل حاکمیت اراده در حقوق بین‌الملل خصوصی ایران. دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی (دانشگاه تهران)، 85(0).
    3. حجت‌زاده، علی‌رضا، نوشادی، ابراهیم (1390). قانون حاکم بر قراردادهای الکترونیک بین‌المللی. حقوقی بین‌المللی. 28 (44)، 263-281.

    Doi: 10.22066/CILAMAG.2011.17169  

    1. شیروی، عبدالحسین (1381). نظریة غیرمنصفانه و خلاف وجدان بودن شروط قراردادی در حقوق کامن‌لو با تأکید بر حقوق انگلستان، آمریکا و استرالیا. مجتمع آموزش عالی قم. 18(1)، 119-95.
    2. غمامی، مجید، صانعیان، علی‌اصغر (1399). اعتبار قرارداد انتخاب دادگاه در حقوق بین‌الملل خصوصی و تأثیر آن در شناسایی و اجرای آراء خارجی. حقوقی دادگستری. 84(110)، 188-167.   Doi: 10.22106/jlj.2020.112818.2897
    3. کریمی، عباس (1381). شروط تحمیلی از دیدگاه قواعد عمومی قراردادها. پژوهش‌های حقوقی. 1(1)، 82-75.
    4. محسنی، حسن، غفاری فارسانی، بهنام، شوشی‌نسب، نفیسه (1391). دعاوی جمعی و نقش آن در احقاق حقوق مصرف‌کننده. پژوهش حقوق خصوصی. 1(1)، 182-157.

     

     

    ب) منابع انگلیسی

    - Articles

    1. Baker, S. (2018). Digital Platform and Their Terms of Use: Dose It Matter? Court Uncourt. 5(5).
    • Butterfield, T. Bartlett, B. (2011). Coming to Terms: Hidden Traps for Media Entities and Producers in Website Terms of Use Agreements. Landslide. 3(6).
    • Solberg, L. Complying with Facebook’s Terms of Use in Academic Research: A Contractual and Ethical Perspective on Data Mining and Informed Consent. UMKC Law Review. 82(3).
    • Abruzzi, B. (2010). Copyright, Free Expression, and the Enforceability of Personal Use-Only and Other Use-Restrictive Online Terms of Use. Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal. 26(1).
    • Hartzog, W. (2010). The New Price to Play: Are Passive Online Media Users Bound by Terms of Use. Communication Law and Policy. 15(4), 85-140. https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol26/iss1/3
    • Sandeen, S. (2003). The sense and Nonsense of Web Site Terms of Use Agreement, Hamline Law Review, 26(3), 984-1012. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40041783
    • Rustad, M. Onufrio, M. V. (2012). Reconceptualizing Consumer Terms of Use for Globalized Knowledge Economy. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law. 14(4). 12-30. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jbl/vol14/iss4/6
    • Rustad, M. D’Angelo, D. (2011). The Path of Internet Law: An Annotated Guide. Duke Law & Technology Review, 1-74.
    • , N. (2002). La Formation du Contract Electronique: Dispositif de Protection du Cyberconsommateur et Mode Alternatifs de Regelment des Confilits. DEA Droit de Contrats, Universite de Lille 2.

     

    • Mund, B. (2017). Social Media Searches and the Reasonableness Expectation of Privacy. Yale Journal & Technology. 11(19), 239-273. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/7815.
    • Livingston, J. (2012). Invasion Contract: The Privacy Implications of Terms of Use Agreements in the Online Social Media Setting. Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology. 21(3), 592-636.
    • Chiu, A. (2012). Irrationality Bound: Terms of Use Licenses and the Breakdown of Consumer Rationality in the Market for Social Network Sites. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal. 21(1), 165-197.
    • Wauters, E. Lievens, E. Valcke, P. (2014). Toward a Better Protection of Social Media Users: A Legal Prespective on the Terms of Use of Social Networking Sites. International Journal of Law and Information Technology. 22(3), 254-294. 1093/ijlit/eau002

    - Cases

    • Burcham v. EXPEDIA, INC., No. 4: 07CV1963 CDP (E.D. Mo. Mar. 6, 2009).
    • Druyan v. Jagger, 508 F. Supp. 2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
    • ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
    • com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004).
    • Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
    • Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991).
    • Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., 51 Cal. App. 4th 1519 (Ct. App. 1997).
    • Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Technologies, Inc., 507 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
Jurisprudence and Islamic Law
Volume 14, Issue 32
September 2023
Pages 191-224

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics