9 Common Clickwrap Mistakes - Avoid Needless Risk by Addressing the Pitfalls

Avoid these top nine common clickwrap mistakes when using online or in-app contract acceptance.

1. No individual acceptance records

AWS logs with timestamped user creation simply aren’t enough.

Courts need timestamps & back-end metadata tied to a specific, immutable version history for every single user’s acceptance.

2. No version history

Contracts require Offer, Acceptance, & Consideration. Without proving exactly which contract version was offered to a user, courts cannot uphold acceptance. They simply don’t know what was accepted and will render the entire contract void.

3. Immutability question marks

If you cannot prove that a historical version is actually historical (& unchanged since you pushed the next version) a court will be unlikely to bind a user to that contract. After all, a defendant would be incentivize to go back and change it.

4. Hiding critical clauses

This gave rise to the winning “needle in a haystack argument.” After all, your jury is full of users who don’t read terms, especially more than the first page. Burying Arbitration Provisions & Class Action waivers deep in the ToS body has been seen as deceptive and unenforceable by courts, paving the way for expensive class action.

5. Disparate or non-existent back-end metadata

In some cases, teams have a good amount of acceptance metadata. The problem? They have to weave together years of acceptance activities across multiple teams, numerous databases, and tens of thousands of users. These heroic efforts often don’t work, and costs hundreds of hours of internal time regardless of the outcome.

6. Weak acceptance method

Any method that does not involve a single-purpose action to accept the agreement is weak. Specifically, the sole purpose of a user action should be to accept the agreement.

7. Ambiguous language

“By checking this box, I agree to these terms & conditions.” Cool UI is not for legal matters - straightforward & clear is the name of the game here.

8. Hidden acceptance language

Placing acceptance language beneath the call to action is often seen as deceptive, giving plaintiffs the argument that they were never notified of the terms - critical for a contract being in place. Putting acceptance above the CTA is an easy solve here.

9. No reacceptance for updates

“You agree to any and all future updates” simply doesn’t hold true when those updates are highly impactful. Changing jurisdiction or payment terms? Adding arbitration provisions? You must have each user actively reaccept the new contract.

Whether you're looking to solve one or all of these common clickwrap mistakes - we're here to help you put the right online acceptance contract in place with ToughClicks. 

Please note that this article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Always consult with qualified legal professionals regarding your specific situation.