Yes Means No(thing): Bridging Consent in Contract Law and Data Protection in the Context of Smart Mobility

John M Eger, ‘The Glabal Phenomenon of Teleinformantics: An Introduction’ (1981) 14 Cornell International Law Journal 203. See also Timothy L Skelton, ‘Internet Copyright Infringement and Service Providers: The Case for a Negotiated Rulemaking Alternative Comments’ (1998) 35 San Diego Law Review 219; S Blair Kauffman, ‘The Future of Legal Bibliography: The Role of Laserdiscs and Computers in Compiling and Distributing Bibliographies Trends’ (1989) 9 Legal Reference Services Quarterly 147.

See for instance Richard T Watson and Leyland F Pitt, ‘Personal Computing Ethics: Beliefs and Behaviour’ (1993) 13 International Journal of Information Management 287; John A Lehman, ‘Personal Computing vs. Personal Computers’ (1985) 9 Information & Management 253; Tor Guimaraes and Vasudevan Ramanujam, ‘Sources of Personal Computing Problems’ (1989) 17 Omega 543.

In this chapter, web 1.0 refers to the early internet, marked by the emergence of the first worldwide internet services, such as the Netscape browser, which displayed static, non-interactive information. See for instance Tim O’Reilly, ‘What Is Web 2.0’ (O’Reilly, 30 September 2015) <www.​oreilly.​com/​pub/​a/​web2/​archive/​what-is-web-20.​html> accessed 24 March 2020; Diane Murley, ‘What Is All the Fuss about Library 2.0 Technology for Everyone…’ (2008) 100 Law Library Journal 197; George Bouchagiar, ‘Privacy and Web 3.0: Implementing Trust and Learning from Social Networks’ (2018) 10(4) Review of European Studies 16; Christopher G Reddick and Donald F Norris, ‘Social Media Adoption at the American Grass Roots: Web 2.0 or 1.5?’ (2013) 30 Government Information Quarterly 498.

Graham Greenleaf, ‘An Endnote on Regulating Cyberspace: Architecture vs. Law Electronic Commerce: Legal Issues for the Information Age’ (1998) 21 University of New South Wales Law Journal 593; Nick Doty and Deirdre K Mulligan, ‘Internet Multistakeholder Processes and Techno-Policy Standards: Initial Reflections on Privacy at the World Wide Web Consortium The Technology of Piracy’ (2013) 11 Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law 135; Robert Uerpmann-Wittzack, ‘Principles of International Internet Law’ (2010) 11 German Law Journal 1245 <www.​cambridge.​org/​core/​journals/​german-law-journal/​article/​principles-of-international-internet-law/​3E9B0ED4BABDC582​FA1A053DDD454987​> accessed 27 August 2020.

Matthew Fagin, ‘Regulating Speech Across Borders: Technology vs. Values Comment’ (2003) 9(2) Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 395; Philip J Weiser, ‘Law and Information Platforms Symposium - The Regulation of Information Platforms: Overview’ (2002) 1(1) Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law 1; Jose MA Emmanuel A Caral, ‘Lessons from ICANN: Is Self-Regulation of the Internet Fundamentally Flawed’ (2004) 12 International Journal of Law and Information Technology 1; Orly Lobel, ‘The Renew Deal: The Fall of Regulation and the Rise of Governance in Contemporary Legal Thought’ (2004) 89 Minnesota Law Review 342; Stefan Bechtold, ‘Governance in Namespaces Symposium: ICANN Governance’ (2002) 36 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1239.

Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, ‘Anonymity in Cyberspace: What Can We Learn from John Doe Publicity, Privacy, and Intellectual Property Meet the First Amendment’ (2009) 50 Boston College Law Review 1373; Greenleaf (n 4); Richard A Paul and Lisa H Chung, ‘Brave New Cyberworld: The Employer’s Legal Guide to the Interactive Internet’ (2008) 24 Labor Lawyer 109; Jonathon W Penney, ‘Privacy and the New Virtualism’ (2007) 10 Yale Journal of Law and Technology 194.

Lidsky (n 6); Joel Reidenberg, ‘The Rule of Intellectual Property Law in the Internet Economy Copyright in Context: Institute for Intellectual Property & Informational Law Symposium - Fourth Annual Baker Botts Lecture’ (2007) 44 Houston Law Review 1073; Kristin Delaney, ‘World Wide Web: Using Internet Governance Structures to Address Intellectual Property and International Development Note’ (2006) 32 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 603.

Jenny Kassan and Janelle Orsi, ‘The Legal Landscape of the Sharing Economy Symposium: The Local Revolution: How Relationships and Legal Policies Are Helping Create Sustainable Communities Around the Country’ (2012) 27 Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 1; Guy Pessach, ‘An International-Comparative Perspective on Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing and Third Party Liability in Copyright Law: Framing the Past, Present, and Next Generations’ Questions’ (2007) 40 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 87; Leah Wing, ‘Social Impact and Technology: Issues of Access, Inequality and Disputing in the Collaborative Economy’ (2014) 1 International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution 150.

Stephen M Feldman, ‘Broken Platforms, Broken Communities: Free Speech on Campus’ (2018) 27 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 949; Shelly Kreiczer-Levy and Ronit Donyets-Kedar, ‘Better Left Forgotten: An Argument against Treating Some Social Media and Digital Assets as Inheritance in an Era of Platform Power’ (2018) 84 Brooklyn Law Review 703; Clement Salung Petersen, Vibe Garf Ulfbeck and Ole Hansen, ‘Platforms as Private Governance Systems - The Example of Airbnb’ (2018) 1 Nordic Journal of Commercial Law 38; Weiser (n 5); Cobun Keegan and Calli Schroeder, ‘Unpacking Unfairness: The FTC’s Evolving Measures of Privacy Harms’ (2019) 15 Journal of Law, Economics & Policy 19.

Marloes Dignum, ‘E-Governance for Smart Cities Book Review’ (2015) 16 Competition and Regulation in Network Industries 309; Lilian Edwards, ‘Privacy, Security and Data Protection in Smart Cities: A Critical EU Law Perspective’ (2016) 2 European Data Protection Law Review 28; Janine S Hiller and Jordan M Blanke, ‘Smart Cities, Big Data, and the Resilience of Privacy’ (2016) 68 Hastings Law Journal 309; Nabeel Jurdi, ‘Smart Cities and Global Village’ (2018) 69 Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization 132; Jan Whittington, ‘Remembering the Public in the Race to Become Smart Cities’ (2016) 85 University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 925; K Sabeel Rahman, ‘The New Utilities: Private Power, Social Infrastructure, and the Revival of the Public Utility Concept’ (2017) 39 Cardozo Law Review 1621.

Hiller and Blanke (n 10) 317.

Christopher Kuner, ‘Reality and Illusion in EU Data Transfer Regulation Post Schrems’ (2017) 18 German Law Journal 881 <www.​cambridge.​org/​core/​journals/​german-law-journal/​article/​reality-and-illusion-in-eu-data-transfer-regulation-post-schrems/​0341A0D14DC34573​0F9B48A496A968D3​> accessed 27 August 2020.

‘Uber Transit for Real-Time Public Transit Information in the App’ (Uber) <www.​uber.​com/​nl/​en/​ride/​transit/​> accessed 24 March 2020.

‘Green Deal Smart Energy Cities’ (Topsector Energie) <www.​topsectorenergie​.​nl/​tki-urban-energy/​kennisdossiers/​green-deal-smart-energy-cities> accessed 24 March 2020.

‘Remourban’ (The Smart Circle) <www.​smart-circle.​org/​portfolios/​remourban/​> accessed 24 March 2020. See also Hiller and Blanke (n 10) 317.

‘Climate Change: Thousands Invited to Join Citizens Assembly’ BBC News (2 November 2019) <www.​bbc.​com/​news/​science-environment-50264797> accessed 24 March 2020.

Natali Helberger, Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius and Agustin Reyna, ‘The Perfect Match? A Closer Look at the Relationship between EU Consumer Law and Data Protection Law’ (2017) 54 CML Rev 1427.

Chris J Hoofnagle, ‘Designing for Consent’ (2018) 7 Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 162; Helberger, Zuiderveen Borgesius and Reyna (n 17).

Omri Ben-Shahar, ‘Fixing Unfair Contracts’ (2010) 63 Stanford Law Review 869; Omri Ben-Shahar and Ariel Porat, ‘Personalizing Negligence Law’ (2016) 91 New York University Law Review 627; Omri Ben-Shahar and Carl E Schneider, ‘Coping with the Failure of Mandated Disclosure’ (2015) 11 Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies 83; Omri Ben-Shahar and Ariel Porat, ‘Personalizing Mandatory Rules in Contract Law Symposium: Personalized Law’ (2019) 91 University of Chicago Law Review 255; Omri Ben-Shahar, ‘Regulation through Boilerplate: An Apologia’ (2014) 112 Michigan Law Review 883; Oren Bar-Gill, ‘Seduction by Plastic’ (2003) 98 Northwestern University Law Review 1373; Oren Bar-Gill, ‘The Behavioral Economics of Consumer Contracts Exchange’ (2007) 92 Minnesota Law Review 749; Ariel Porat, ‘Private Production of Public Goods: Liability for Unrequested Benefits’ (2009) 108 Michigan Law Review 189; David Gilo and Ariel Porat, ‘The Hidden Roles of Boilerplate and Standard-Form Contracts: Strategic Imposition of Transaction Costs, Segmentation of Consumers, and Anticompetitive Effects’ (2006) 104 Michigan Law Review 983; Rory Van Loo, ‘Digital Market Perfection’ (2018) 117 Michigan Law Review 815; Shmuel I Becher, ‘Unintended Consequences and the Design of Consumer Protection Legislation’ (2018) 93 Tulane Law Review 105; Hoofnagle (n 18).

Gregory Klass, ‘Intent to Contract’ (2009) 95 Virginia Law Review 1437; Gregory Klass, ‘Three Pictures of Contract: Duty, Power, and Compound Rule’ (2008) 83 New York University Law Review 1726; Barnett, ‘Consent Theory of Contract, A’ (n 21); Barnett, ‘Some Problems with Contract as Promise’ (n 21); Anthony J Bellia, ‘Contracting with Electronic Agents’ (2001) 50 Emory Law Journal 1047.

Art 14.1, United Nations, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331.

ibid, art 18.1.

James Chang and Farnaz Alemi, ‘Gaming the System: A Critique of Minors’ Privilege to Disaffirm Online Contracts’ (2012) 2 UC Irvine Law Review 627, 648.

RJ Robertson, ‘Electronic Commerce on the Internet and the Statute of Frauds’ (1998) 49 South Carolina Law Review 787, 810.

See for instance Peer Zumbansen, ‘Contracting in the Internet: German Contract Law and Internet Auctions’ (2001) 2(7) German Law Journal <www.​cambridge.​org/​core/​journals/​german-law-journal/​article/​contracting-in-the-internet-german-contract-law-and-internet-auctions/​A61AA388C6E50BA0​656D002148379949​> accessed 24 March 2020.

A third model is ‘shrinkwrap’: if a user opens the packaging of a software product (plastic shrinkwrap) and starts using the software, a contract is concluded. This contract formation model, however, does not necessarily reflect an intention to be legally bound expressed online. Moreover, shrinkwrap agreements grew in importance because of the fact that as of the early days of personal computers, the purchase of software became crucial to the functioning of these machines. This issue thus became part of the greater debate on licensing and IP rights.

CompuServe, Inc v Patterson 89 F3d 1257 (6^th Cir 1996). See also MySpace, Inc v TheGlobe.com, Inc WL 1686966 (CD Cal 2007), dealing with enforceable MySpace clickwrap agreement; Koresko v RealNetworks, Inc. 291 F Supp 2d 1157 (ED Cal 2003), dealing with ‘I agree’ box clicked by user, therefore agreement enforced; Hoffman v Supplements Togo Mgmt, LLC 18 A3d 210 (NJ Super 2011) relating to choice of forum clause not enforced because website was structured unfairly; Caspi v Microsoft Network, LLC 118, 732 A2d 528 (NJ Super Ct App Div 1999) relating to choice of forum clause enforced, as users had to click ‘I agree’ or ‘I don’t agree’; Forrest v Verizon Communications, Inc 805 A2d 1011 (DC App 2002): ‘A contract is no less a contract simply because it is entered into via a computer’; American Eyewear, Inc v Peeper’s Sunglasses 106 F Supp 2d 895 (ND Tex 2000); Hotmail Corp v Van$ Money Pie, Inc WL 388389 (ND Cal 1998) on enforcing Hotmail clickwrap agreement with clause prohibiting users from distributing spam; AV v iParadigms 544 F Supp 2d 473 (ED Va 2008). See also Steven C Bennett, ‘Click-Wrap Arbitration Clauses’ (2000) 14 International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 397, 410.

See for instance Margaret J Radin, ‘Humans, Computers, and Binding Commitment’ (2000) 75 Indiana Law Journal 1125, 1162; Mark L Tuft, ‘Internet Communications with Prospective Clients When Disclaimers May Not Be Enough’ (2006) The Professional Lawyer Symposium 23, 27; Susan Y Chao, ‘Contract Law - Electronic Contract Formation - District Court for the Central District of California Holds That a Web-Wrap Site License Does Not Equate to an Enforceable Contract - Ticketmaster Corp v Tickets.​com, Inc’ (2001) 54 Southern Methodist University Law Review 439, 442.

UCITA §1633.14 mentions:

(a)

In an automated transaction, the following rules apply:

(1)

A contract may be formed by the interaction of electronic agents of the parties, even if no individual was aware of or reviewed the electronic agents’ actions or the resulting terms and agreements.

 

(2)

A contract may be formed by the interaction of an electronic agent and an individual, acting on the individual’s own behalf or for another person, including by an interaction in which the individual performs actions that the individual is free to refuse to perform and which the individual knows or has reason to know will cause the electronic agent to complete the transaction or performance.

 

 

(b)

The terms of the contract are determined by the substantive law applicable to it.

 

Robert W Hahn and Anne Layne-Farrar, ‘An Economic Assessment of UCITA’ (2002) 24 Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 335, 341.

Jeffrey M Jensen, ‘Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts over International E-Commerce Cases’ (2007) 40 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1507, 1551; Francis J Mootz, ‘After the Battle of the Forms: Commercial Contracting in the Electronic Age’ (2008) 4 I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 271, 282; see also Specht v Netscape Communications Corp, 306 F3d 17 (2d Cir 2002); Hubbert v Dell Corp 835 NE2d 113 (Ill App Ct 2005); Southwest Airlines v Boardfirst, Llc, 2007 WL 4823761 (ND Tex 2007); Cvent, Inc v Eventbrite, Inc 739 F Supp 2d 927 (E D V a 2010); Nguyen v Barnes & Noble, Inc, 763 F3d 1171 (9th Cir 2014); Be In, Inc v Google Inc 12-CV-03373-LHK (ND Cal 2013); Hines vOverstock.com, Inc, 668 FSupp2d 362, 366–67 (ED NY 2009); Cairo, Inc v Crossmedia Servs, Inc WL 756610 (ND Cal 2005); Pollstar v Gigmania, Ltd 170 F Supp 2d 974 (ED Cal 2000); Nghiem v Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc 222 F. Supp. 3d 805 (CD Cal 2016); Long v Provide Commerce, Inc 245 CA4th 855 (CA Cal 2016); Tompkins v 23andMe, Inc 840 F3d 1016 (9th Cir 2016).

See for instance Lima v Gateway, Inc 886 F Supp 2d 1170 (CD Cal 2012); Savetsky v Pre-Paid Legal Servs, Inc WL 604767 (ND Cal 2015).

‘Update on Shrinkwrap/Clickwrap/Browsewrap Contracts’ (2006) 21 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 552, 554. See also Register.com, Inc v Verio, Inc, 356 F. 3d 393 (2d Cir 2004).

PDC Labs, Inc v Hach Co WL 2605270 (CD Ill 2009); Swift v Zynga Game Network, Inc 805 F Supp 2d 904 (ND Cal 2011).

Parliament and Council Directive (EU) 2011/83 of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, [2011] OL 304/64.

Lohsse (n 39); Zofia Bednarz, Breach of Information Duties in the B2C E-Commerce: A Comparative Perspective (Marcial Pons Ediciones Jurídicas 2019); Great Britain: Law Commission, Consumer Redress for Misleading and Aggressive Practices: A Joint Consultation Paper (The Stationery Office 2011).

Ruth R Faden and Tom L Beauchamp, A History and Theory of Informed Consent (Oxford University Press 1986); Fida K Dankar, Marton Gergely and Samar K Dankar, ‘Informed Consent in Biomedical Research’ (2019) 17 Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 463. See also Alexandra Giannopoulou, ‘Algorithmic Systems: The Consent Is in the Detail?’ (2020) 9 Internet Policy Review <https://​policyreview.​info/​articles/​analysis/​algorithmic-systems-consent-detail> accessed 24 March 2020; Elettra Bietti, ‘Consent as a Free Pass: Platform Power and the Limits of the Informational Turn’ (2020) 40 Pace Law Review 310.

Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 679/2016 of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) [2016] OJ L119/1 (GDPR), recital 32.

ibid. See also Christopher F Mondschein, ‘Some Iconoclastic Thoughts on the Effectiveness of Simplified Notices and Icons for Informing Individuals as Proposed in Article 12(1) and (7) GDPR’ (2016) 2 European Data Protection Law Review 507; Paul Voigt and Axel von dem Bussche, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Practical Guide (Springer 2017); JC Buitelaar, ‘Privacy: Back to the Roots’ (2012) 13 German Law Journal 171 <www.​cambridge.​org/​core/​journals/​german-law-journal/​article/​privacy-back-to-the-roots/​4BF002324861DBEB​E0E0C3314709866C​> accessed 27 August 2020; Jordan M Blanke, ‘Robust Notice and Informed Consent: The Keys to Successful Spyware Legislation’ (2005) 7 Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 1; Bart Custers and others, ‘Informed Consent in Social Media Use - The Gap between User Expectations and EU Personal Data Protection Law’ (2013) 10 SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society 435; Shara Monteleone, ‘Addressing the Failure of Informed Consent in Online Data Protection: Learning the Lessons from Behaviour-Aware Regulation’ (2015) 43 Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 69; Eoin Carolan, ‘The Continuing Problems with Online Consent under the EU’s Emerging Data Protection Principles’ (2016) 32 Computer Law & Security Review 462; Yue Liu, ‘User Control of Personal Information Concerning Mobile-App: Notice and Consent?’ (2014) 30 Computer Law & Security Review 521.

While these principles are mentioned in relation to Parliament and Council Directive 95/46 EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data [1995] OJ L 281/31, AG Szpunar acknowledges that they equally apply to the GDPR as well.

ibid, para 66.

ibid, para 67.

ibid, para 61.

ibid, para 55.

Gabriela Zanfir Fortuna, ‘Planet49 CJEU Judgment Brings Some “Cookie Consent” Certainty to Planet Online Tracking’ (European Law Blog, 8 October 2019) <https://​europeanlawblog.​eu/​2019/​10/​08/​planet49-cjeu-judgment-brings-some-cookie-consent-certainty-to-planet-online-tracking/​> accessed 24 March 2020.

Catalina Goanta, ‘Information Duties in the Internet Era: Case Note on Content Services Ltd v. Bundesarbeitkammer’ (2013) 21 European Review of Private Law 643.

See also Alessandro Mantelero, ‘The Future of Consumer Data Protection in the E.U. Re-Thinking the “Notice and Consent” Paradigm in the New Era of Predictive Analytics’ (2014) 30 Computer Law & Security Review 643.

See also Liam Curren and Jane Kaye, ‘Revoking Consent: A “Blind Spot” in Data Protection Law?’ (2010) 26 Computer Law & Security Review 273.

Mobility companies gather a lot of locational data, and need to explain this process to users. See Aggeliki Tsohou and Eleni Kosta, ‘Enabling Valid Informed Consent for Location Tracking through Privacy Awareness of Users: A Process Theory’ (2017) 33 Computer Law & Security Review 434.

Given the current complexity of marketing email services (e.g. the use of pixel tracking), it would even be possible for data companies to determine whether users read updates to general terms sent by email.

It is important to note that for a lot of digital content contracts (e.g. with Facebook), there are no incentives for a party to invalidate such a contract. This discussion can, however, play a role in situations where damage may occur (e.g. using a Lime e-scooter and damaging it or damaging additional things), and there needs to be a contractual or extra-contractual assessment of the regime applicable to such damages.

Helberger, Borgesius and Reyna (n 17).