4 ms·
> Donato previously rejected Facebook’s argument that the case had to be dismissed because the attempt to enforce Illinois law runs afoul of its user agreement
by mehrdadn 8y ago
> Donato previously rejected Facebook’s argument that the case had to be dismissed because the attempt to enforce Illinois law runs afoul of its user agreement that requires disputes to be resolved under the laws of California, where it’s based.
Could someone please elaborate on this? I feel like I've seen clauses like this all over the place. Are they really unenforceable? What is the judge's reasoning?
- Sacho 8y agoIANAL, but his reasoning would probably be in the summary judgement denial that's on the docket: ORDER re Summary Judgment Motions ([257], [299], [307]). Signed by Judge James Donato on 5/14/2018. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2018) Unfortunately, I don't really have access to PACER or money to gamble on opening random documents to see which one has the actual info. The US "public access to court electronic records" isn't very "public"-friendly. (docket listing kindly provided by user thinkcomp - https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2mwpixhn9/california-northern-district-court/patel-v-facebook-inc/ https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2mwpixhn9/california-north...)
- checkyoursudo 8y agoI haven't had to deal with choice of law stuff in maybe 15 years, but basically it's that choice of law clauses are not the equivalent of get-out-of-Illinois-free cards. Just because you want some place to have jurisdiction doesn't mean that any other jurisdiction is required to comply automatically. Choice of law ... law is not always straight forward. You shouldn't rely on it as any sort of guarantee that you'll get to be haled into court only on your home turf.