Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Blum
Feldman v. Google, Inc.
Citation:513 F. Supp. 2d 229 (2007)
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Feldman signed up for online advertisements through Google’s program, AdWords. Before having an active account, Feldman had to agree to Google’s “terms and conditions” which were laid out in a scroll box and also available in a printer-friendly version. On the top of the agreement the words, “Carefully read the following terms and conditions” were printed in bold. Part of the contract was visible without having to scroll, including a provision stating that consent to its terms created a binding agreement. Feldman must have clicked on the “I agree” button at the end of the terms and conditions in order to create his active account.
After creating his account, Feldman was the victim of “click fraud” meaning that someone repeatedly clicked on his ad so that he would be charged a lot, as he had to pay per click. Feldman claimed that he did not have actual knowledge of the terms of the contract when he signed up for this service because he did not read the contract and therefore he was not warned of this risk.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.