1. One of the most significant case decisions regarding online contracts is Specht v. Netscape. Decided in 2002, its analysis has laid the foundation for interpreting all types of e-contracts, but specifically browsewrap agreements. In that case, a user of a website challenged the terms and conditions in a browsewrap agreement that he did not see while downloading software from the site. Specifically, John Gibson wanted to download a software program, SmartDownload, from the Netscape website. Use of the software did not first require the user to click "I accept" as with a clickwrap agreement. Gibson downloaded the software. Later, Gibson and others believed that the software transmitted private information about its users. 
2. Netscape was sued. Netscape claimed that the arbitration clause in the agreement applied to any claims that the plaintiffs had. However, the plaintiffs claim that the conditions of use were located at the bottom of the web page through a hyperlink, below the download button. The hyperlink was not conspicuous enough so it was possible to completely miss the link with the terms and conditions, which happened in this case. The term at issue was the enforceability of an arbitration clause. In its reasoning, the court distinguished between the different types of Internet agreements—clickwrap, shrinkwrap, and browsewrap—determining that this case involved a browsewrap agreement. Even though Netscape argued that simply failing to read the contract was not a defense, the court held otherwise. 
3. The court focused on meaningful assent and lack of notice of the terms of the contract. It stated that terms must be posted with "clarity and conspicuousness" so that parties to a contract can "fully and clearly comprehend the agreement" that will bind them. Ordinarily, ignorance or failure to read a contract is not a defense to its enforceability, but in this case, Netscape's displaying of the terms and conditions of the contract was so egregious that the court refused to hold users of the website responsible to the terms. The arbitration clause was unenforceable against the plaintiffs. 
4.  
5. Review Specht v. Netscape. Would the result have changed had the hyperlink been posted above the icon to download the software? What facts did the court identify that characterized the contract in this case as a browsewrap rather than a clickwrap agreement?