Richards v. Holsum Bakery, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that whether a user is on notice “turns on the clarity and conspicuousness” of the terms (alteration and quotation marks omitted)
• concluding that “the pleading” was “not obviously a concession” because it made “no reference to [the plaintiff’s] knowledge”
• holding that the Uber App’s interface provided reasonable notice, in part, because the “[t]he entire screen [wa]s visible at once,” “uncluttered,” and contained similar “warning” lan- guage
• concluding that an enforceable agreement was formed where the mobile app explicitly warned, “By creating an Uber account, you agree to the TERMS OF SERVICE & PRIVACY POLICY”
• concluding that an enforceable agreement was formed where the mobile app explicitly warned, “By creating an Uber account, you agree to the TERMS OF SERVICE & PRIVACY POLICY”
• holding that the Uber app formed a valid agreement under browsewrap case law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).