ProCD Inc v Zeidenberg
Rule established
Shrink-wrap licenses are enforceable contracts; opening the package and using the software constitutes acceptance of the license terms (US 7th Circuit).
Facts
- ProCD invested $10 million compiling a database of 95 million telephone listings from 3,000 directories
- It sold the database on CD-ROM: $150 for personal use, higher price for commercial use
- The shrink-wrap licence (printed inside the box and displayed on screen during installation) restricted use to non-commercial purposes
- Matthew Zeidenberg bought the personal-use version and made the database available through his commercial website
- ProCD sued for breach of the licence agreement
- The district court held the licence unenforceable (not agreed to at point of sale)
Issues
- Whether a shrink-wrap licence (terms available only after purchase, inside the box) forms a binding contract
- Whether terms presented after the point of sale can be part of the contract
Held
- Shrink-wrap licences are enforceable under UCC Article 2
- Not all terms of a transaction need to be communicated at the moment money changes hands (analogy: insurance policies, airline tickets, concert tickets)
- The buyer received adequate notice (terms printed in the box and on-screen) and had the opportunity to reject and return the product
- Continued use after notice constitutes acceptance
- The licence restriction on commercial use was binding; Zeidenberg was liable for breach
Ratio Decidendi
Contract formation can occur in stages. A buyer who receives terms after payment may accept by retaining and using the product, or reject by returning it. The key factors are: (1) notice of terms, (2) opportunity to review, (3) ability to reject (return). Market efficiency supports post-purchase terms because pre-purchase disclosure of all terms for mass-market software would be impractical.
How to use it in an exam
- Foundational authority on shrink-wrap licence enforceability
- Cite in IT Law questions on electronic contracts, software licensing, and formation of online agreements
- Pair with Specht v Netscape (2002) for the browse-wrap counterpoint (unenforceable without notice)
- Indian context: relevant for S.10A IT Act and Consumer Protection Act analysis of unfair terms
- Also relevant for copyright/database questions: ProCD couldn't get copyright (Feist), so it used contract instead
Source
Source: 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.