Talk:In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

lead paragraph improvment

Hi, I'm your first reviewer. I think lead paragraph could use some work... right now it says:

... the Court held that Zappos.com's customers did not agree to its obscurely presented browsewrap terms of use and that such an agreement would also be unenforceable because Zappos had reserved the right to change it at any time without notice to the customer.

Perhaps this could be generalized so that it doesn't sound like it only applied to Zappos' users, like "the Court held that obscurely presenting an browsewrap terms of use does not constitute agreement, and that terms which can be changed at any time by one party is unenforceable." The rest of the leading paragraph I think is a bit awkward and not as assertive as it could be:

This was an important court decision for businesses that use browsewrap agreements and/or that include a clause in their agreements that allow them to change the agreements at any time. The decision's resulting discussion in law blogs provided lessons on how a business should display its terms of use and what clauses to avoid when writing or revising them.

If it deserves a wiki article than the importance should be shown, not declared -- maybe something along the lines of "this decision shaped the discussion and development of what browsewrap agreements should include and how it should be display" may be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnishi237 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary from law blogs

I've never seen a wiki article which has a specific section on a class of sources, and it reads a bit like a disconnected collection of opinions. It doesn't really matter that the source was a blog post (are you going to ignore relevant future sources that are, say, in legal journals?). If possible, I think it would be much clearer to collect and find common themes which are present in several blog posts, present those views as paragraphs in a section called "Reaction and Reception" or something, and cite the blogs (instead of naming them by name in the main article, since it doesn't matter really who "Stanfield Hiserodt" or "Lewis Roca Rothgerber" are, as long they are reputable). Tnishi237 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dyk nomination

I create a DYK nomination and place it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnishi237 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC) ................................................. The article should really discuss the appeal decision in this case by the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. See https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/03/08/16-16860.pdf .184.180.87.188 (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of California, Berkeley supported by WikiProject Intellectual Property law and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 17:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]