Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Asher on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion

    • David M. Lasley on Analysis of Simkin v. Blank

    • Patrick S. O'Donnell on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • A.J. Sutter on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Weslie on First Amendment “Exceptions” and What the First Amendment Means (#2)

    • Gerard Magliocca on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion

    • Gerard Magliocca on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Gerard Magliocca on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion

    • Joe on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion

    • Gfd on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion

    • Gerard Magliocca on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion

    • Gerard Magliocca on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Privacy Policy Lessons from Handbook Cases

posted by Lawrence Cunningham

Just as the hottest practical topic in contract law during the 1990s was whether corporate employee handbooks could be enforced as contracts, among today’s hot practical contract law topics is whether corporate policy statements, especially on the internet, can be enforced as contracts.  We’re in the beginning of a struggle on that point, whose dynamic echoes that of the handbook cases of two decades ago—and we might learn something from them.

Before the 1980s, the common law of contracts was clear that employee handbooks weren’t offers to form contracts and wouldn’t be binding anyway for lack of consideration. Policy statements about employee retention, even those promising not to discharge employees except for cause, weren’t enforceable.

As human resources departments spruced up those handbooks through the late 1980s and early 1990s, to express firmer commitments in seductive language, and the documents proliferated nationally, the doctrine shifted. The handbooks could, if reasonably manifesting such a signal, be offers to form unilateral contracts with employees. By reporting for work every day, employees could be seen to take the action necessary to form a unilateral contract on the handbook’s terms, supplying requisite consideration.

From this shifting legal landscape, employers got the message and took care in handbooks to say what they meant and to mean what they said. The glossy boastful brochures returned to the form of practical utilitarian guides, not dangling inducements of job security that might, for example, discourage unionization.

Courts struggled during this process of changing the landscape with traditional doctrines used to evaluate whether to enforce promises as contracts. That meant new encounters with old contract law tools of offer, acceptance, consideration, mutual assent, definiteness, consideration, even questions about whether employees incurred cognizable damages by staying employed. Contract law’s tools worked because the employee manuals common before the 1980s didn’t warrant enforcement as contracts, but many of the 1990s did.

An eerily similar shift is afoot concerning corporate policies about privacy, especially on-line. The same tools are in play: statements that don’t look like offers law’s seen before; trouble evaluating how they’d be accepted or relied on; difficulty finding sufficient definiteness or requisite consideration; and doubt about whether damages result. Thus courts have classified corporate policies as lacking manifestations of willingness to enter into a bargain (so they’re not offers); not signaling by reading them an intention to form a bargain (so acceptance doesn’t occur); terms too vague for a bargain (lacking mutual assent and insufficiently definite); terms not bargained for (lack of consideration) or relied upon (people don’t read them); and damages are elusive or conjectural (what’s the economic value of lost privacy, anyway?)

As courts struggle with this, they are forging pathways to recognize policies as part of contracts, appreciating that reliance can exist even without reading the fine print, and, perhaps unwittingly, exposing vividly the relation between the old handbook battles and today’s privacy disputation.  As the stakes rise, and damages become more obvious, and it becomes easier to see that policy-posters do intend to induce particular and valuable behavior, you’ll see contract law’s grand tools come to the rescue.   But courts will need a nudge, and I think they’re getting it.

A harbinger of the path forward appears in Meyer v. Christie, No. 07-2230, 2007 WL 3120695 (D.Kan.  2007) (including distinguishing leading 1976 handbook case, followed in the mid-1990s struggle).  Other cases supporting various assertions in this post are: Smith v. Trusted Universal Standards in Electronics Transactions Inc., 2010 WL 1799456 (D. N.J. 2010) (policies part of contract but no breach occurred); Cherny v. Emigrant Bank, 604 F.Supp.2d 605 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (a contract maybe, but no damages); In re Jetblue Airways Corp. Privacy Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 299, 325 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (reliance possible without insisting on literacy); Dyer v. Northwest Airlines Corp., 334 F.Supp.2d 1196 (D.N.D. 2004) (old-fashioned myopia of the possibility).


 August 25, 2010 at 12:36 pm   Posted in: Consumer Protection Law, Contract Law & Beyond, Privacy, Privacy (Consumer Privacy), Privacy (Electronic Surveillance)   Print This Post Print This Post

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress