ProCD Inc v Zeidenberg

86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)1996Information Technology Law
it-lawshrink-wrapsoftware-licenseacceptance-by-use

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

  1. Whether a shrink-wrap licence (terms available only after purchase, inside the box) forms a binding contract
  2. 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.

Cited in study notes

it-lawElectronic Contracts - Shrink Wrap Click Wrap Browse WrapShrink-wrap licenses are enforceable contracts; opening the package and using th