Clickwrap vs Browsewrap: What Online Businesses Need to Know

Most online businesses use one of two patterns to bind users to their terms and policies:

a passive footer link with language like "By using this site, you agree…"
an active checkbox or button where users clearly confirm "I agree to the Terms".

In legal terms, these are usually called browsewrap and clickwrap agreements.

They may look similar, but courts don't treat them the same way. Over the last two decades, judges have repeatedly:

questioned browsewrap agreements that rely on implied consent, and
upheld well-designed clickwrap flows where users clearly click to agree.

This article walks through:

what browsewrap and clickwrap actually are
how courts have approached their enforceability
when browsewrap alone is not enough
how to combine both patterns without wrecking your conversion rate
how tools like SolidWraps help you shift to stronger, more provable clickwrap flows

Nothing in this article is legal advice. It's a practical overview to help you talk to your own lawyers and make better product decisions.

What is a browsewrap agreement?

A browsewrap agreement is an online contract where:

the terms are made available via a link (often in the footer or a sidebar), and
the site says, in effect, "by using this website, you agree to these terms".

Users are not asked to tick a box or click a specific "I agree" button. Consent is implied from continuing to browse or use the site.

Common examples:

"By continuing to use this site, you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy."
"Use of this website constitutes acceptance of our Terms."

In practice, browsewrap agreements are attractive because they:

are low friction – users aren't forced to stop and read anything
are easy to add – one generic message and a link in the footer

But from an enforcement point of view, they're vulnerable:

many users never see the terms link
there is no clear record of when a specific user accepted anything
courts may view them as providing insufficient notice to individual consumers, especially in higher-risk contexts

What is a clickwrap agreement?

A clickwrap agreement is an online contract where users must take an affirmative, unambiguous action to agree to terms or policies before they can proceed – typically by:

ticking a checkbox (e.g. "I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy"), or
clicking a button that clearly indicates acceptance (e.g. "Create account – I accept the Terms").

Typical clickwrap features:

terms are accessible via a prominent link near the checkbox or button
the interface explains that clicking or checking means accepting those terms
the user cannot continue until they take that action

Because clickwrap requires a clear "yes" from the user, it offers:

stronger evidence of assent
a more straightforward path to enforcement, assuming the interface is designed properly

How courts have treated clickwrap and browsewrap

Courts in multiple jurisdictions have recognised the difference between these patterns.

Browsewrap: weak notice, weak contract

In Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to enforce an arbitration clause in Barnes & Noble's online Terms of Use because they were presented only via hyperlinks – a classic browsewrap setup. The court held that:

a conspicuous hyperlink to terms of use, without more, was not enough to give a consumer reasonable notice; and
simply using the website did not show the user had agreed to those terms.

Similarly, in Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., the US Second Circuit declined to enforce a license where the terms were not clearly displayed before download and users were not told that clicking "Download" meant accepting those terms. The court emphasised the need for reasonable notice and unambiguous consent to make such online agreements binding.

These cases don't say browsewrap is never enforceable, but they show how fragile it is in consumer-facing contexts when notice is weak.

Clickwrap: clear assent, stronger footing

In contrast, courts have often upheld clickwrap flows that:

present terms clearly, and
require users to affirmatively click to accept.

A recent example is Wu v. Uber Tech., Inc., a 2024 decision from New York's highest court. The Court of Appeals held that Uber's in-app clickwrap process – where users had to consent to its Terms of Use to use the service – formed an enforceable arbitration agreement. Commentators have described the decision as a practical "instruction manual" for drafting enforceable clickwrap terms, and the judgment emphasised traditional principles of notice and assent applied in a modern, app-based context.

Across commentary and case law, the trend is consistent:

When users are given clear notice and must clearly click to agree, courts are significantly more willing to enforce the resulting contract. When terms are just linked in the background, enforcement is much less predictable.

Clickwrap vs browsewrap: pros and cons for online businesses

From a business perspective, both patterns have trade-offs.

Browsewrap: low friction, high uncertainty

Pros

Almost no extra UX friction
Easy to add to any site with a footer and a standard set of terms

Cons

Users may never see or understand the terms
Much harder to prove consent from a specific user
Courts may refuse to enforce key clauses (e.g. arbitration, limitations of liability) in consumer cases where notice was weak

Clickwrap: more robust, but requires design work

Pros

Clear record that the user took a specific action to agree
Better alignment with how courts think about notice and assent
Easier to demonstrate consent to specific terms or policy versions

Cons

Introduces some friction into flows like registration or checkout
Needs thoughtful design to avoid hurting conversion
Requires proper logging in the background to be fully defensible

For many online businesses, the question is not "clickwrap or browsewrap?", but:

"Where can we safely use browsewrap, and where do we need clickwrap and proper records?"

When browsewrap alone is not enough

In low-risk, low-value interactions (e.g. anonymous browsing, basic informational content), a browsewrap-style link to terms may be a pragmatic starting point.

But as the stakes increase, relying on implied consent becomes harder to justify. Consider using clickwrap (plus logging) any time you:

create an account or profile
collect personal or payment information
enter into paid subscriptions, bookings or higher-value transactions
rely on important clauses such as:
- limitations of liability
- disclaimers for professional or regulated services
- IP ownership and licence terms
- arbitration or jurisdiction clauses

In these scenarios, your business is effectively betting that your agreement will hold up if challenged. A pure browsewrap pattern makes that a much bigger gamble.

A practical hybrid: browsewrap everywhere, clickwrap at key moments

A common best-practice pattern is to combine browsewrap and clickwrap:

Site-wide browsewrap
- Keep your Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy linked in the footer or header across the site.
- This ensures users can access your policies at any time.
Clickwrap at "moments of commitment"
- Add clear "I agree" language and a checkbox or button on:
  - registration and sign-up pages
  - checkout and payment steps
  - account upgrade, renewal or pricing change flows
  - screens where you introduce materially new uses of data or features
Re-consent when terms change in a meaningful way
- For major policy updates, consider banner or modal prompts that users must accept before continuing to use key parts of the service.
- Pair this with a structured record of who agreed to which version and when.

This hybrid approach keeps everyday browsing smooth, while strengthening your position where it matters most.

Implementing clickwrap without destroying UX

The main hesitation many teams have about clickwrap is: "Won't it hurt conversion?"

In practice, you can design clickwrap so that it:

is clear without being aggressive
uses concise, plain language
keeps the acceptance action close to the terms link
doesn't force users through unnecessary extra steps

Some simple design tips:

Place the checkbox and terms links close to the primary button (e.g. "Sign Up").
Use straightforward language: "By creating an account, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy."
Avoid all-caps legalese on the UI itself; keep the detail in the underlying documents.
Ensure the button is disabled until the checkbox is ticked, so your logs genuinely reflect affirmative consent.

When done well, clickwrap adds clarity more than friction – users understand that they are entering into an agreement, and your logs reflect that clearly.

Make it provable: clickwrap needs logging to matter

Crucially, clickwrap is not just a UI problem. Its real value is in how it supports evidence.

To turn a clickwrap flow into something you can rely on in a dispute or audit, you need a consent log that records:

who agreed (user, customer, or device identifier)
what they agreed to (specific policy type and version)
when they agreed (timestamp + timezone)
where they were (IP and approximate location)
how they agreed (which page, which interface, which action)

Without this, you risk ending up with attractive checkboxes but weak proof when challenged.

How SolidWraps helps you move from browsewrap to defensible clickwrap

SolidWraps is built to help online businesses of all sizes:

present terms and policies clearly, and
capture provable, structured records of user consent.

Here's how it fits into the browsewrap vs clickwrap decision.

1. Hosted, versioned policy pages

Instead of copying and pasting terms into different parts of your site, SolidWraps lets you:

host your Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy and related documents on dedicated, versioned pages
give each version a stable URL
update policies by publishing new versions rather than overwriting old ones

This works for both browsewrap and clickwrap:

your site footer can link to the hosted policies (browsewrap layer), and
your clickwrap flows can reference specific versions for logging.

2. Drop-in clickwrap experiences

SolidWraps provides drop-in clickwrap components you can embed wherever you need stronger assent, for example:

sign-up and login forms
checkout and subscription pages
account settings, upgrades and renewals

You can configure these to:

display the relevant policies or key terms
require a checkbox or explicit action before the user proceeds
work across different devices and channels while staying consistent with your brand

Every time a user accepts terms via SolidWraps, the platform records a structured consent event, including:

who accepted (where an identifier is provided)
which policy and version they agreed to
when they agreed, with timestamp and context
where they were (via IP-based location)
how and where the clickwrap was presented (e.g. hosted page, embedded modal)

This gives you a dedicated evidence trail instead of a patchwork of logs spread across systems.

4. A clearer story when something goes wrong

When there is a dispute, audit or regulatory request, SolidWraps helps you answer practical questions like:

"Which version of the terms did this customer agree to before we changed pricing?"
"How many users in a particular region consented to our updated data processing terms?"
"Can we show that this person saw and agreed to the clause they're challenging?"

The goal is simple: reduce the gap between what you intended users to agree to, and what you can actually prove they agreed to.

Bringing it together

Browsewrap and clickwrap are not just abstract legal labels – they describe how your business allocates risk every day.

Browsewrap is easy and invisible, but often fragile if tested.
Clickwrap takes a little more effort, but offers clearer notice, clearer assent and clearer proof.

For most online businesses, the smart move is to:

keep browsewrap-style links to your terms everywhere, and
introduce well-designed clickwrap (plus proper logging) at the points where consent really matters.

Tools like SolidWraps exist to make that shift easier – so you don't have to choose between acceptable UX and a defensible online contract.