Dropbox sent the user an email with the notice of the change, and an opportunity to opt-out within 30 days if they’d like.

One problem: Dropbox first incorporated an arbitration clause in their terms in 2014, and this user signed up for his account and accepted terms in 2011. Rather than attempting to win this case on its merits, Dropbox moves to compel arbitration – a much cheaper, more private, more efficient way to handle this case rather than months to years of open litigation. The plaintiff claims a wide array of harms – invasion of privacy, negligence, FCRA violations, breaches of multiple state laws, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Dropbox, Inc.?ĭropbox is in a dispute with a user that filed an action in November 2020, centering on an alleged data breach and compromise of his account in 2012. Why’s everyone asking Ironclad about Sifuentes vs. completely changes how legal teams should be thinking about updating their terms of service (ToS) or other platform terms when it comes time for a change.Įmail summaries may be out. It’s not something I bring up at cocktail hour with friends.īut in the past few days, I’ve gotten more questions from customers and prospects – unprompted – about a brand new case decision out of the Northern District of California than ever before. Spending all that effort to stay up to date with these case decisions helps us stay ahead of the law in these areas, but let’s be honest – it’s not exactly riveting happy hour conversation. My first job, right out of law school, was monitoring public filings to help us build the very first Clickwrap Transaction Platform when we were back at PactSafe in 2015. For the past seven years, there are probably few folks on earth that have spent more time reading about clickwrap-centered litigation than my colleagues and I here at Ironclad.

Dropbox inc. starting as a company