Addressing Unconscionable Terms in Online Contracts

When you click “I Agree” to use a new app or online service, you’re entering into a contract. But what happens when the terms buried in those lengthy agreements are so unfair that they shock the conscience? Online contracts have revolutionized commerce, but they’ve also raised serious concerns about terms that heavily favor one party over the other. Courts across India are increasingly confronted with questions about whether these one-sided clauses should be enforced.

What makes a contract term unconscionable? 🔗

An unconscionable contract is one where the terms are so oppressive that they shock the conscience of the court. In simpler terms, these are agreements where one party has such an unfair advantage that the other party has no meaningful choice but to accept whatever is offered.

Indian courts recognize two dimensions of unfairness in contracts: procedural and substantive. Procedural unfairness relates to how the contract was formed-did one party have overwhelming bargaining power? Was there adequate disclosure? Substantive unfairness, on the other hand, concerns what the contract actually says-are the terms themselves grossly one-sided?

The challenge with online license agreements 🔗

Most online contracts take the form of clickwrap agreements, where all terms are predetermined and displayed on a webpage or installation screen. You either click “I Agree” or you don’t use the service. There is no scope for negotiation in these standard form contracts.

This creates a fundamental problem. The classical principle of freedom of contract assumes that parties negotiate terms on roughly equal footing. But when a global technology platform presents non-negotiable terms to individual users, this assumption breaks down completely.

Common unconscionable clauses in online agreements 🔗

Online service providers often include terms that would raise eyebrows in traditional contracts. These might include unlimited rights to terminate service without cause, extensive limitation of liability clauses, mandatory arbitration provisions, or clauses allowing unilateral changes to the agreement at any time.

Courts have found certain specific terms in contracts to be unconscionable and struck them down, particularly when these terms completely absolve one party of basic contractual obligations.

How Indian law addresses unconscionability 🔗

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not contain a specific provision dealing with unconscionable contracts as a standalone category. However, the law provides several mechanisms to address unfair terms.

Section 16 and undue influence 🔗

Section 16(3) of the Indian Contract Act addresses situations where a person in a position to dominate another’s will enters into an unconscionable transaction. When this happens, the burden shifts to the dominant party to prove the contract was not obtained through undue influence.

However, Indian courts have traditionally required undue influence to be proved in the conventional sense, which means showing actual domination or a fiduciary relationship. This makes it difficult to challenge standard online contracts where there’s no personal relationship between the parties.

Public policy under Section 23 🔗

Courts also rely on Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, which declares agreements void if they are opposed to public policy. The Supreme Court has used this provision to strike down unconscionable employment contract clauses, such as terms allowing termination without reason or notice.

In the landmark case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, the Supreme Court held that a clause providing for arbitrary termination of permanent employees was unreasonable, opposed to public policy, and unconscionable.

Consumer Protection Act 2019: A new framework 🔗

Recognizing the limitations of the Contract Act, the Consumer Protection Act 2019 introduced the concept of unfair contracts for consumer transactions. This represents a significant shift in Indian law.

Definition of unfair contracts 🔗

The Act defines unfair contracts as those causing significant change in consumer rights, including contracts that require excessive security deposits, impose disproportionate penalties for breach, refuse early debt repayment, allow unilateral termination without cause, or permit assignment without consumer consent.

Consumers can now file complaints about unfair contract terms before Consumer Commissions. The Act allows Consumer Commissions to intervene in cases involving unfair contract terms such as hidden charges or terms that disproportionately benefit the seller.

Limitations of consumer protection 🔗

While the Consumer Protection Act marks progress, it applies only to consumer contracts. Commercial transactions between businesses, employment agreements, and other non-consumer contracts remain governed primarily by the Indian Contract Act and judicial interpretation.

India still lacks general statutory supervision over unreasonable exclusion clauses beyond the consumer context, leaving parties in commercial contracts with limited recourse against unconscionable terms.

How courts assess unconscionability 🔗

When evaluating whether contract terms are unconscionable, courts examine the circumstances at the time of contract formation. The assessment isn’t about whether the deal turned out badly, but whether it was fundamentally unfair when made.

Factors courts consider 🔗

Courts look at the relative bargaining power of the parties, whether there was meaningful choice, the commercial context, and whether terms were hidden or presented deceptively. Courts examine whether one party took advantage of the other due to factors like immaturity, poverty, or lack of adequate advice.

The Law Commission of India in its 199th Report highlighted a crucial question: even if a consumer knows about unfair terms in a standard form contract, could they negotiate to change them? If not, what does formal consent really mean?

Interpretative tools 🔗

Courts employ several interpretative mechanisms when dealing with potentially unconscionable clauses. The contra proferentem rule requires ambiguous terms to be construed against the party that drafted them. Courts attempt to instill fair contracting by adopting mechanisms against unfair use of exclusion clauses.

Enforcement challenges and remedies 🔗

When courts find terms unconscionable, they have several options. They can void the entire contract, strike down specific unconscionable clauses while enforcing the rest, or refuse to enforce particular provisions.

Contracts with prima facie unfair terms can be struck down by Consumer Commissions. For non-consumer contracts, courts rely on doctrines of undue influence, public policy, or statutory interpretation to provide relief.

The duty to read doctrine 🔗

One challenge in online contracts is the duty to read doctrine. Traditional contract law holds that parties who sign agreements are bound by their terms, even if they didn’t read them. This principle makes it difficult to challenge online terms on grounds of unconscionability alone.

However, courts recognize that in standardized clickwrap contracts, consent is legally valid if terms are conspicuous and not grossly inequitable or unconscionable.

Looking ahead: Need for legislative reform 🔗

Legal experts have long argued for comprehensive legislation addressing unconscionable contracts beyond the consumer context. The Law Commission of India in its 199th Report recommended reforms to empower courts to adjudicate claims based on substantive unconscionability.

Other jurisdictions have enacted specific protections. The UK’s Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 empowers courts to strike down unreasonable exclusion clauses. The United States has incorporated unconscionability provisions in the Uniform Commercial Code, allowing courts to refuse enforcement of unconscionable contracts.

For India, the question remains whether the existing framework adequately protects parties from genuinely oppressive online contract terms, or whether more comprehensive statutory reform is needed to address the realities of digital commerce.

What do you think? Should Indian law adopt more explicit protections against unconscionable online contract terms beyond consumer transactions? How can courts balance freedom of contract with protection from genuinely oppressive terms in the digital age?

References

1. https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2405585.pdf
2. https://thelawblog.in/2021/06/27/consent-in-online-contractual-transactions-issues-challenges/
3. https://www.brandsnbonds.com/updates/information-technology/electronic-contracts-and-their-validity/
4. https://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/13-4-Mohan-Jain-Exclusion-Clauses-Under-The-Indian-Contract-Law-NUJS-Law-Review.pdf
5. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/568692/
6. https://vidhi.org/analysing-unconscionability-undue-influence-and-coercion-under-indian-contract-act-1872/
7. https://treelife.in/legal/unconscionable-contracts-and-related-principles/
8. https://blog.ipleaders.in/unconscionability-a-ground-for-avoiding-agreements/
9. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1657006
10. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47873513/
11. https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=13771
12. https://repository.nls.ac.in/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1081&context=ijclp
13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360850441_Unconscionability_of_E-contracts_A_Comparative_Study_of_India_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_United_States
14. https://consumerhelpline.gov.in/public/knowledgebasedetails/Consumer%20Protection%20Act%202019
15. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140848451/