Because the court also saw the final screen. The one every user had to click before joining MSN.
Look at this. Right there on the screen: ‘If you click “I Agree” without reading the membership agreement, you are still agreeing to be bound by all the terms.’
Two buttons. I agree. Or. I disagree.
Microsoft literally told them: ‘We don’t care if you read it. IF you click this button, you are bound’
So the user has 3 choices, read then click agree, skip read and click i agree anyway and accept the risks or click disagree and walk away.
The plaintiffs picked option two. Then later said, ‘Wait, we didn’t know what we agreed to.’
But the screen proves they were warned. Explicitly.
Two pieces of evidence now: Rudder’s testimony showing he could’ve read it but didn’t. And the warning screen showing he was told exactly what clicking meant.
Case falling apart.
So when it came time for the judge to rule, the decision was pretty much a done deal...
So Justice Winkler has to decide. And his logic? Three simple points.
First: THe clause was easy to read. No tiny font. No tricks. Users scrolled through the terms…just like turning pages in a paper contract
Second: There was a clear warning. The system told users exactly what ‘I Agree’ meant. No ambiguity.
Third: This is a big one. Justice Winkler said if these digital contracts weren’t valid–if scrolling didn’t count as reading…it would cause chaos in the marketplace.
He called it ‘commercial absurdity’.
Think about that. If everyone could click ‘I agree’ and then later say ‘I didn’t really agree,’ no online business could function. NO company could rely on terms of service. E-commerce would collapse.
So Justice Winkler made the call: Scrolling through a text box is legally the same as turning pages in a paper contract. You can’t read page one and act surprised about page 5.
Verdict. Microsoft wins. Forum selection clause upheld. The 75 million dollar lawsuit? Stopped. Permanently.