I'm a bit confused what you mean. There is no law, but quite a bit of precedent in various U.S. jurisdictions, including from the federal appeals courts of two

I'm a bit confused what you mean. There is no law, but quite a bit of precedent in various U.S. jurisdictions, including from the federal appeals courts of two different circuits, as listed on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap The Vitacost case you mentioned is not listed there but, looking at the decision, seems to be a straightforward application of two of the precedents (Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble and Hubbert v. Dell); it doesn't disagree with them. I did forget one complication when writing my previous post, which is, at least according to the aforementioned Hubbert v. Dell, there are some circumstances where a browse-wrap agreement may be enforceable: > In 2005, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of a browse-wrap agreement in Hubbert v. Dell Corp. In this case consumers of Dell products were repeatedly shown the words "All sales are subject to Dell's Term[s] and Conditions of Sale", including a conspicuous hyperlink, over a series of pages. The court found that this repeated exposure and visual effect would put a reasonable person on notice of the "terms and conditions". But that's fairly different from a typical browse-wrap agreement.