The reason for this proposal is that the court will take note of the fact that all websites will be opened by the upper left quadrant, so that the defendant will have to overcome the presumption that the symbol has been considered. Without this presumption, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant saw the icon.  In 2005, the Illinois Court of Appeals ruled in favour of an agreement to seek a Browse Wrap in Hubbert v. Dell Corp. In this case, consumers of Dell products have been repeatedly informed of the terms „All sales are subject to Dell`s terms of sale,“ including a striking hyperlink, via a number of pages. The court found that this exposure and repeated visual effect would lead a reasonable person to „conditions and conditions.“  Many courts have refused to impose Browse Wrap agreements because of the lack of user messages and consent. In Nghiem, the applicant brought legal action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for damages and an order to certify a class action. Defendant Dick`s Sporting Goods (DSG) moved to force arbitration on the basis of the DSG TOCs website. The Tribunal rejected DSG`s application and decided that the applicant was not aware of the OCDs on the website and was not bound by the compromise clause contained in the research agreement.
We also discovered that the idea that users accept the terms of the browsewraps pass simply by using the website is problematic, as users will often use the site without ever knowing that there is a Browsewrap agreement.