"If you use our site, you're required to pay $100 to this address .... You're also not allowed to have pets, grow your own vegetables or vote for Hillary Clinton."

Hey Philipp --

Among the legal set, these types of agreements are called "clickwraps" and there are plenty of cases where clickwraps have been enforced.

But, imho, I think your gut reaction is perfectly reasonable.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwra ...

On a more serious note, I think those terms are only for those who use a Google Account. When you create an account, you're required to agree to those terms. Read this phrase:

"That said, when we become aware of a user who is violating our Terms of Service, including not being of proper age to accept the Terms of Service, we take appropriate action, which could include the termination of the user’s Google Account."

I should clarify that if you don't actually click (you don't sign up for something and click "I agree"), then the term of art for that type of agreement is a "browsewrap."

Browsewraps are more dubious, from a legal perspective, than are clickwraps.

For those interested, Mark Lemley, who does legal work for Google now and then, has a good recent article on all this.

lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory ...

I've talk about that with a Law specialist yesterday. In France, and maybe in the USA, there are two kind of contracts:
1) "important contrats": buy a car, a house, a marriage, etc. It can be canceled.
2) "minors contracts/facts" : buy a sandwich, subscribe to a newsletter, etc. It can't be canceled.

Google's phrase is in the second category (except for Adwords maybe) and it means "you certify that you're signing with me a contract that can't be canceled".

So C|Net is wrong, a toddler can use Google.

I've read yesterday on Wikipedia "the Rights of Child", so a child has the right to access information, search for it. So I can Google.

Doodle 4 Google contest is intended to kids but through their schools.
it is clear that a kid must not use freely Google search the internet links converge to porn sites.

Yeah Greg, looks like we have a browsewrap case here, and it would turn into a clickwrap case as soon as you register for a Google account (and hence actually see the terms, though you may not read them). Reading through your link, here is a quote from Greg's link from Mark A. Lemley (Stanford Law School) abstract of his paper:

<<[A]n increasing number of courts have enforced “browsewrap” licenses, in which the user does not see the contract at all but in which the license terms provide that using a Web site constitutes agreement to a contract whether the user knows it or not. (...)

Virtually all of the cases that have refused to enforce a browsewrap license have done so in order to protect consumers; conversely, virtually all the cases that have enforced browsewrap licenses have done so against a commercial entity. (...)

I have three goals in this paper. First, I explain how courts came to enforce browsewrap licenses, at least in some cases. Second, I suggest that if browsewraps are to be enforceable at all, enforcement should be limited to the context in which it has so far occurred – against sophisticated commercial entities who are repeat players. Finally, I argue that even in that context the enforcement of browsewraps creates problems for common practice that need to be solved.>>

"Yeah Greg, looks like we have a browsewrap case here, and it would turn into a clickwrap case as soon as you register for a Google account"

The moment Google sets a cookie on your computer, isn't that your account? By agreeing to the placement of the cookie on your computer, you are essentially "registering" your computer with Google.

Now, I know it's not an "official" Google user/pass login account. But it is still a "registration" of your computer with Google.

Any user is free to block that cookie. By not blocking it, does the browsewrap turn into clickwrap?

Regardless of whether a court would enforce it or not, does Google wish to have under-18s as customers?

If the answer is "no", then Google would lose a lot of business (e.g. in schools) if this was more widely known. And certainly Google should not be paying Firefox to default to Google search, because Firefox is happy to distribute to under-18s.

If the answer is "yes", then how can Google expect us to respect their other terms and conditions if they do not expect people to take this one seriously?

Either way, Google really should sort this out.

And what about google apps for schools as Roger Browne pointed out, and I know at least 10 underage people which use google docs at school :P

What about Google For Educators? Classroom activities: google.com/educators/activitie ...

Digg it up!
digg.com/software/Google_Forbi ...

Buried, this is a false debate.

"Submitted: 309 days ago"

> Any user is free to block that cookie. By not blocking it, does the browsewrap turn into clickwrap?

No. Clickwrap is where you *see* the terms (although of course you don't have to actually read them, but you know they exist). Browsewrap is where you just click links from site to site.

I find it ironic that a company so quick to claim they proudly support open source and sneer at nasty, nasty companies that actually charge for software or services, they are quick to leap on any and all legal protections, even silly ones like this.