Rather than forcing the user to manually accept the agreement, the user implicitly agrees by simply using the website or mobile app. If a court considers this inequality to be so great that it is unfair, they will refuse to enforce the agreement. This is a high bar that needs to be demonstrated. It is a difficult task for a user to prove that an agreement is unfair. In Scherillo v. Dun-Bradstreet z.B. a Review Tribunal imposed a clickwrap agreement against user Scherillo. This case is part of an emerging trend of judicial control of “wrap” agreements that publishes the terms and conditions of a website via a hyperlink located at the bottom of the screen on the site, and where users are likely to express their consent to the terms using the site, in contrast to a “Click through” agreement, which expressly invites users to use the terms and conditions. to accept the conditions (by “clicking” a field). There are also other flavors of website agreements called “wrap scrolling” or “wrap signature chords.” In our series 3 posts, we describe the three usual methods of obtaining user consent online, referring to examples of case law and the factors that influence their applicability in court. Our third article is devoted to The Browsewrap Agreements. (Read the first article and the second post here.) Since browsewrap agreements do not require positive steps on the part of the user to accept the terms of an agreement, the courts have decided that the validity of such agreements depends on actual or constructive knowledge of these conditions.