<s>
Specht	B-Application
v	I-Application
.	I-Application
Netscape	I-Application
,	O
306	O
F.3d	O
17	O
(	O
2d	O
Cir	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
2002	O
)	O
,	O
is	O
a	O
ruling	O
at	O
the	O
United	O
States	O
Court	O
of	O
Appeals	O
for	O
the	O
Second	O
Circuit	O
regarding	O
the	O
enforceability	O
of	O
clickwrap	O
software	B-License
licenses	I-License
under	O
contract	O
law	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Christopher	O
Specht	O
and	O
several	O
co-plaintiffs	O
were	O
users	O
of	O
the	O
Netscape	B-Protocol
web	I-Protocol
browser	I-Protocol
and	O
related	O
software	O
that	O
they	O
had	O
downloaded	O
from	O
the	O
Internet	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Upon	O
reviewing	O
the	O
agreements	O
later	O
,	O
they	O
found	O
that	O
they	O
disagreed	O
with	O
a	O
stipulation	O
that	O
any	O
legal	O
disputes	O
must	O
go	O
to	O
arbitration	O
rather	O
to	O
court	O
,	O
and	O
with	O
various	O
stipulations	O
that	O
allowed	O
Netscape	B-Protocol
to	O
track	O
user	O
activity	O
in	O
ways	O
that	O
allegedly	O
invaded	O
privacy	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
All	O
of	O
plaintiffs	O
acknowledged	O
that	O
they	O
clicked	O
"	O
yes	O
"	O
when	O
prompted	O
to	O
agree	O
to	O
the	O
EULA	O
while	O
downloading	O
the	O
Netscape	B-Protocol
web	O
browsers	O
,	O
but	O
claimed	O
that	O
there	O
was	O
no	O
such	O
prompt	O
for	O
the	O
associated	O
SmartDownload	O
plug-in	O
that	O
facilitated	O
the	O
process	O
,	O
and	O
that	O
a	O
button	O
to	O
indicate	O
assent	O
to	O
that	O
license	O
could	O
only	O
be	O
found	O
by	O
scrolling	O
beyond	O
the	O
"	O
download	O
"	O
button	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
plaintiffs	O
brought	O
suit	O
at	O
the	O
United	O
States	O
District	O
Court	O
for	O
the	O
Southern	O
District	O
of	O
New	O
York	O
against	O
Netscape	B-Protocol
Communications	O
Corporation	O
,	O
claiming	O
that	O
the	O
terms	O
of	O
the	O
EULAs	O
enabled	O
violations	O
of	O
the	O
Electronic	O
Communications	O
Privacy	O
Act	O
and	O
the	O
Computer	O
Fraud	O
and	O
Abuse	O
Act	O
,	O
while	O
the	O
inability	O
to	O
review	O
the	O
EULAs	O
before	O
downloading	O
the	O
software	O
was	O
a	O
violation	O
of	O
contract	O
law	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Meanwhile	O
,	O
Specht	O
operated	O
an	O
online	O
business	O
in	O
which	O
he	O
offered	O
files	O
to	O
be	O
downloaded	O
by	O
his	O
customers	O
;	O
he	O
claimed	O
that	O
Netscape	B-Protocol
tracked	O
his	O
customers	O
 '	O
data	O
via	O
the	O
SmartDownload	O
process	O
,	O
while	O
Netscape	B-Protocol
countered	O
that	O
Specht	O
benefited	O
financially	O
from	O
this	O
process	O
and	O
had	O
no	O
valid	O
objection	O
to	O
the	O
SmartDownload	O
functionality	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Netscape	B-Protocol
moved	O
that	O
the	O
plaintiffs	O
were	O
prohibited	O
from	O
bringing	O
the	O
dispute	O
to	O
court	O
,	O
because	O
of	O
the	O
very	O
same	O
EULAs	O
being	O
argued	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
According	O
to	O
Netscape	B-Protocol
,	O
the	O
plaintiffs	O
had	O
voluntarily	O
agreed	O
to	O
the	O
EULAs	O
,	O
including	O
the	O
provision	O
requiring	O
all	O
legal	O
disputes	O
to	O
go	O
to	O
arbitration	O
,	O
so	O
therefore	O
the	O
present	O
dispute	O
should	O
go	O
to	O
arbitration	O
as	O
well	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
district	O
court	O
denied	O
Netscape	B-Protocol
's	O
motion	O
to	O
dismiss	O
the	O
case	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Since	O
the	O
plaintiffs	O
were	O
not	O
given	O
sufficient	O
opportunity	O
to	O
review	O
the	O
arbitration	O
clause	O
in	O
the	O
SmartDownload	O
EULA	O
,	O
Netscape	B-Protocol
could	O
not	O
compel	O
that	O
technique	O
for	O
resolving	O
the	O
present	O
dispute	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
court	O
also	O
rejected	O
Netscape	B-Protocol
's	O
claim	O
against	O
Christopher	O
Specht	O
in	O
particular	O
,	O
holding	O
that	O
any	O
benefits	O
that	O
he	O
received	O
from	O
the	O
SmartDownloard	O
functionality	O
were	O
indirect	O
and	O
not	O
sufficient	O
for	O
compelling	O
arbitration	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Netscape	B-Protocol
,	O
continuing	O
to	O
argue	O
that	O
the	O
dispute	O
with	O
the	O
defendants	O
should	O
be	O
handled	O
via	O
arbitration	O
,	O
appealed	O
the	O
district	O
court	O
decision	O
to	O
the	O
United	O
States	O
Court	O
of	O
Appeals	O
for	O
the	O
Second	O
Circuit	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
circuit	O
court	O
affirmed	O
the	O
lower	O
court	O
's	O
decision	O
,	O
rejecting	O
Netscape	B-Protocol
's	O
argument	O
that	O
the	O
dispute	O
should	O
go	O
to	O
arbitration	O
,	O
while	O
ruling	O
that	O
the	O
EULA	O
requiring	O
this	O
method	O
was	O
not	O
an	O
enforceable	O
contract	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
circuit	O
court	O
held	O
further	O
that	O
a	O
license	O
agreement	O
for	O
SmartDownload	O
was	O
not	O
included	O
in	O
the	O
parallel	O
agreement	O
for	O
the	O
Netscape	B-Protocol
browser	I-Protocol
despite	O
the	O
fact	O
that	O
SmartDownload	O
is	O
meant	O
to	O
enhance	O
the	O
functioning	O
of	O
the	O
browser	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
immediate	O
result	O
of	O
the	O
circuit	O
court	O
ruling	O
was	O
that	O
the	O
dispute	O
between	O
the	O
plaintiffs	O
and	O
Netscape	B-Protocol
could	O
not	O
be	O
sent	O
to	O
arbitration	O
,	O
and	O
the	O
remaining	O
factors	O
in	O
the	O
dispute	O
,	O
including	O
tracking	O
of	O
user	O
data	O
,	O
would	O
have	O
to	O
be	O
heard	O
in	O
a	O
full	O
hearing	O
at	O
district	O
court	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
parties	O
settled	O
that	O
dispute	O
out	O
of	O
court	O
,	O
with	O
Netscape	B-Protocol
agreeing	O
to	O
stop	O
collecting	O
data	O
on	O
the	O
plaintiffs	O
but	O
with	O
no	O
admission	O
of	O
violations	O
of	O
the	O
Electronic	O
Communications	O
Privacy	O
Act	O
.	O
</s>
