Legal News

Case against Skype Fine Print Use Revived by Appeals Court
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

Last week, the California Court of Appeals for the 2nd Appellate District overturned the ruling of a lower court and reinstated the lawsuit of a customer who alleged that Skype’s unlimited plan was deceptive. The plaintiff Melissa Chapman had alleged that calling the plan “unlimited” while providing a small-print link at the bottom of the webpage that led to a separate webpage disclosing the limits on the plan was deceptive and against California’s laws against deceptive advertising.

Chapman alleges that even while the small link at the bottom of the page led to disclosure of limits on the “unlimited” plan, the text of the link did not indicate limitations or restrictions, but just mentioned “a fair use policy applies.”


And then the link led to a separate web page that detailed the unlimited plan as limited to 50 calls a day, six hours a day, and 10,000 minutes a month and with additional calls charged at regular rates. The page also disclosed that the plan, though termed “unlimited” did not include calls to mobile phones in four out of five countries covered by the plan.

Chapman had alleged that she failed to notice the “fair use” footnote when she bought the plan on the presumption that it was unlimited, and was surprised when she found additional charges on her bills.

Her initial lawsuit, which also sought class action, was dismissed by a Superior Court judge who found that Skype had sufficiently disclosed its policy and Chapman’s acceptance of the terms and conditions was implicit.

Get JD Journal in Your Mail

Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!

The appeals court, however, found things to be different and ruled that such conclusions involved factual disputes and the case should go before a jury.

Now it would be the turn of the jurors to decide whether a footnote indicating “fair use” is sufficient to properly disclose that limitations and restrictions on an unlimited plan are hidden in another webpage.

Chapman’s lawyer, James Kawahito said “You can’t say something in a headline and then, through a footnote, say, ‘Just Kidding.’”

Microsoft issued a statement welcoming the ruling and said, “We look forward to rearguing this case in the trial court and are confident that (the judge) will again find in our favor.”

While Microsoft seems to have full confidence in this particular judge, the jurors may not be so easy to convince.



Corporate Attorney


Full-Time or Part-Time Corporate Attorney We are a boutique corporate and commercial transactiona...

Apply now

Experienced Family Law and Estate Litigation Attorney


Prominent Ridgewood, NJ Elder Law firm seeking a New Jersey Licensed Attorney with at least two year...

Apply now

Full-Time Litigation Associate

USA-CA-Los Angeles

Downtown Los Angeles law firm seeks a full-time litigation associate.  Ideal candidates should ...

Apply now


USA-CA-Newport Beach

The Newport Beach office of Lee Hong Degerman Kang & Waimey is looking for graduates of accredited l...

Apply now




Search Now

Real Estate Attorney

USA-SC-North Charleston

North Charleston office of our client seeks real estate attorney with experience. The candidate will...

Apply Now

Senior Family Law Litigation Attorney


Corona office of our client seeks senior family law litigation attorney with 10+ years of experience...

Apply Now

Transactional Attorney

USA-IA-Iowa City

Iowa City office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks transactional attorney with 2+ y...

Apply Now

Most Popular


To Top