Template:Did you know nominations/In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation

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

 * ... that a court case involving Zappos.com found that obscurely presented browsewrap terms of use agreements are not legally-binding?

Created by Wh-237 (talk). Nominated by Tnishi237 (talk) at 22:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Age and length good. Prose is readable, though could use some copyediting for clarity. The problem here is that the article relies entirely on either primary sources, or self-published blogs, or law firms' commercial info-advert sites. The hook itself is cited to a legal finding, and it really should be cited to a secondary source that can give us a reliable interpretation of the impact of the judge's opinion. In particular, the article seems to be making an extraordinary claim, that browsewrap contracts have been struck down, or nearly so, by this precedent. In fact, it seems to be more muddy.The article needs high quality secondary sources. I'd almost argue that the article fails notability due to lack of coverage in mainstream media sources. Besides direct citations of legal opinions, all the sources are essentially blog posts. It even has two sections devoted to summarizing reaction among bloggers. These two sections should probably be deleted, save for any that truly meet the criteria in WP:SELFPUBLISH, "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".The best source in this article is a news blog at Forbes, by Eric Goldman. He's a law professor and hopefully Forbes has some editing and fact checking of these posts. But we need more. Where is the legal press on this? Why only bloggers? I'll ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law if anyone has any suggestions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm here in reference to a request at WP:LAW for review and am currently looking at the article. Note that some of my comments may be outside of the remit of DYK.   GregJackP   Boomer!   00:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Article title should be In re Zappos.com, Inc. per MOS:LAW. The docket number should not be cited, it should be cited as In re Zappos.com, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128155, 2013 WL 4830497 (D. Nev. 2013).
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Article states in lede that the court decision sets precedence, which is incorrect information. A district court decision never sets precedent (note the difference in the term), only appellate courts sets precedent.
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Hook fact is not accurate, see below.
 * Goldman is a RS for the article.
 * WSGR is probably not a reliable source, as it is self-published by a law firm in the field.
 * Boyd is probably not a reliable source, as it is self-published by a law firm in the field.
 * FN5, FN6, and FN8 (court orders), along with FN9 (court opinion) are primary sources, which may be used in legal articles so long as secondary sources are also used. See MOS:LAW.
 * Stanfield is probably not a reliable source, as it is self-published by a law firm in the field.
 * Carleton is probably not a reliable source, as it is a blog.
 * Lexology is a RS for the article.
 * Only two law reviews articles have been published so far:
 * Dan Schechter, Arbitration Clause Included in Website's “Browsewrap” Is Not Binding on Customers, Unlike “Clickwrap,” and Retailer's Power to Unilaterally Modify Clause Renders It Illusory and Unenforceable [In re Zappos.com Customer Data Security Beach Litigation (D. Nev. 2012),], 2012 101 (2013).
 * David Herr and Steve Baicker-McKee, Arbitration - Enforcement of Arbitration Provision - Website Terms and Conditions, 28 No. 2 2 (2013).
 * There are plenty of non-blog sources available per a google search.
 * The claim of the browserwrap being struck down is correct, so far as it relates to Zappos, but no further. It may carry further, as the basis for the decision is sound, but until it is an appellate opinion, it is merely persuasive, not binding.
 * I'll leave the decision to the original reviewer, . Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The suggestions above are a clear road map for fixing this article. Because the length of the better sourced portions of the article, the blog-soured parts can be unceremoniously deleted, leaving an article sill potentially meets DYK. Rewording the article to accurately reflect that it does not set precedent, but only applies to the Zappos case, shouldn't be a lengthy process. Neither should it take too long to replace references so that the article relies mainly on the reliable secondary sources listed above and not only the primary sources, and not any blogs or commercial law firm sites. I think the nominator and original article creator could do these changes within a week or two and the article could probably still make it through the DYK process. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

No response for over a week.  Harrias  talk 11:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)