Browser Wrap licenses are if a consumer accepts a license without actively confirming their consent. For example, when a user views a blog, you inherently agree to the terms of posting the site by viewing the site, even if you have not necessarily read the privacy terms and conditions listed on the site. A Click Wrap license displays a message to the user on their computer screen in which the user must accept the terms of the license agreement by clicking an icon to manifest. n12 The product can only be returned or used if the icon is clicked. For example, when a user tries to obtain The Communicator or Navigator from Netscape, a web page containing the full text of the Communicator/Navigator license agreement is displayed. On the screen, the question is clearly visible: “Do you accept all the terms of the previous license agreement? If yes, click the Yes button. If you select No, the configuration will be closed. Below this text are three buttons or symbols: one called “Back” and is used to return to an earlier stage of preparing the download; a “no” that, when clicked, completes the download; and a “yes” which, when clicked, allows downloading. If the user does not click “Yes” and does not indicate their consent to the license agreement, the user cannot obtain the software. In 1996, with the case of Pro CD v.
Zeidenberg, the Seventh Circuit, it was found that “shrinking film licenses are applicable unless their terms are offensive for reasons that generally apply to contracts.” Shrinking Film Licenses: The Debate Continues, Licorne, D. A. (1997). Idea, 38, 383. The term “shrinked film contract” refers to sales contracts related to shipped products, usually bound by a narrowed film (plastic packaging) and containing terms and conditions. In 2002, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes New York, clarified the definition of a click-wrap license in Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp: Shrink-wrap, click-wrap, now browse-wrap, Pike, G. H.
(2004). Shrink sheet, click change, now browse-circle. Shrink film contracts are boiler platform contracts packaged with products. The use of the product is considered acceptance of the contract. The legal status of shrinking film contracts in the United States is somewhat unclear. In the 1980s, software licensing enforcement laws were passed by Louisiana and Illinois to address this issue, but parts of Louisiana law were struck down at Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd.
and the Illinois Act was quickly repealed.  Even the background does not shed light on the confusion. A number of cases are tracked by ProCD v. Zeidenberg, which considered that such contracts were enforceable (see, for example.B Bowers v. Baystate Technologies) and the other follows Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., who held that these contracts were unenforceable (for example. B Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.), but do not comment on shrinking film contracts as a whole. These decisions are divided on the issue of consent, the former being that only an objective manifestation of consent is necessary, while the latter require at least the possibility of subjective consent. In particular, the Netscape contract was rejected due to the lack of an explicit consent decision (no “I agree” button) and because the contract was not presented directly to the user (users had to click on a link to access the terms). .