Hi CIPAWorld! The Baroness here.
I have an important case to discuss today, Justin Korn v. Simplilearn Americas Inc., No. 25-10461-NMG, 2026 WL 472984, at *1 (D. Mass. Feb. 19, 2026).
Lets dive in.
Background
Plaintiff Justin Korn downloaded Simplilearn’s mobile application on his iPhone and created an account. As is this case with many applications, when creating an account, a user must check a box stating that “I agree to the Terms and Conditions”. (We’ve all done this before).
Usually a company’s “Terms and Conditions” provides a forum selection clause in the event a dispute/issue arises. The “Terms and Conditions” in this case provided that a user must bring an action in Collins County, Texas.
Well, Plaintiff filed suit against Simplilearn for purported violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) in the District Court of Massachusetts—NOT Collins County, Texas.
So of course, Simplilearn moved to transfer the case or, in the alternative, moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the VPPA.
The court denied both motions.
Why?
Motion to Transfer
The key issue was whether Simplilearn had formed an enforceable online agreement with Plaintiff.
Unlike in-person contracts, where terms are physically presented and signed, online agreements depend entirely on notice.
In determining whether a consumer agrees to terms online, the offeror must reasonably notify the user that there are terms to which the user will be bound and give an opportunity to review those terms.
In assessing whether reasonable notice was given online, courts look to the overall interface of the website because the design and content of a website affect a person’s understanding of the agreement being negotiated.
This makes good sense.
If a website is cluttered and terms and conditions are buried within a disclosure, you are basically tricking the consumer to agree to terms. That is NOT providing reasonable notice. And a court will not enforce such an agreement.
For this reason, terms and conditions online are typically presented via blue hyperlinks. Again, to highlight to the consumer that there is a link to further terms.
Here, Simplilearn argues that the “Terms and Conditions” in this case were hyperlinked and underlined and blue and the user must check a box agreeing to the terms and conditions. However, the “Terms and Conditions” next to the box were not hyperlinked. Therefore, the court concluded that “even if a reasonable Simplilearn user checked the box, the user may not have realized that signing up for an online career-learning app was intended to establish a contractual relationship with a forum-selection clause.”
Critical was the declaration of Simplilearn’s CEO.
The company submitted a declaration from its CEO describing the current sign-up process—but the declaration was written in the present tense and failed to confirm that the process was identical in June 2023, when Plainitiff created his account.
I must say, this is a HUGE miss on Simplilearn’s part. In attempting to enforce an online agreement, there must be evidence of the disclosure at the time Plaintiff visited the website. Who cares how the form looks now? I guess it may be helpful to present evidence of how the form looks now if the form didn’t change. But you also must say!
At bottom, the court found Plaintiff was not given reasonable notice of the terms and conditions and therefore did not enter in an enforceable clickwrap agreement with Simplilearn.
The motion to transfer was denied.
Now turning to the motion to dismiss:
Motion to Dismiss
Under the VPPA, a consumer may be a “subscriber of goods or services from a video tape services provider.”
Simplilearn argued that Plaintiff was not a consumer because he did not allege that he “provided something of value, such as money or qualifying information” in exchange for access to videos on the app.
Simplilearn cited to Yershov v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. 820 F.3d 482, 488 (1st Cir. 2016) to argue that the First Circuit requires such an allegation.
However, the court held that Plaintiff need not make such an allegation to qualify as a consumer under the VPPA and Simplilearn misread Yershov.
Allegations that when Plaintiff viewed a video on the app, Simplilearn shared his GPS location and email address, among other information, were sufficient.
Further, Simplilearn argued that the Complaint was not sufficiently pled because it did not allege 1) any disclosure of information to a third party, 2) that the disclosure related to “specific video materials” that Korn requested or obtained or 3) that Simplilearn knowingly collected or obtained the information.
The court was not persuaded by any of the arguments advanced by Simplilearn.
The court found the allegations sufficient to demonstrate disclosure. Plaintiff alleged that an ordinary person could identify a user based upon the disclosed information and this was supported by a review conducted by a private research company.
Second, the Court found the allegations sufficient to demonstrate disclosure of “specific video materials or services”. Plaintiff alleged that each course “is a formulated standalone offering that contains its own distinct video modules [and that] disclosure of the course title also discloses precisely what videos were requested and obtained.”
Lastly, the Court found the allegations sufficient to demonstrate that Simplilearn knowingly collected or obtained information. Plaintiff alleged that Simplilearn purposefully integrated the third party software onto its app for purpose of de-anonymizing users and compiling their information for marketing and advertising purported. That was enough to satisfy the Court.
So there you have it. Pretty straightforward.
VPPA cases are on the rise folks, so be careful out there.
As a reminder, if you want to learn more, the Law Conference of Champions is just around the corner! This year is will be hosted in Irvine May 4-6, 2026! Hope to see you there! Look at this fun trailer:
CIPAWorld 