A couple of legal suits making news center on domain registrars concealing terms in the fine print to the detriment of their customers... allegedly of course!

The first case has web host and domain registrar GoDaddy in hot water for parking ads on undeveloped domain names without the permission of the domain owner.

In this particular case, GoDaddy claims it told registrants about the ad parking in its "Universal Terms of Service," which purported to incorporate by reference to a "Parked Page Service Agreement." However, the cross-reference in the TOS said the parking agreement applied "only to customers who have purchased those referenced Services." 

But the registrants didn't "purchase" the ad parking service; rather, GoDaddy imposed it on them for free. With the botched cross-reference, the contracts the registrants actually agreed to didn't adequately disclose the ad parking. As a result, GoDaddy can't claim the registrants contractually authorized the parking.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on GoDaddy’s Lack of Contractual Authority” (Doc. 163) is granted.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Go Daddy’s “Cross-Motion for PartialSummary Judgment” (Doc. 167) is denied.

The second involves a client of domain name registrar Moniker. Mainstream Advertising, Inc. has filed suit against Moniker and its parent company Oversee.net, claiming breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition over alleged high jinks with expired domain names. Allegedly of course.

Mainstream started using Moniker in 2005 and claims that it has registered, hosted and/or maintained approximately 120,000 domain names through Moniker’s registration and hosting services. Allegedly Moniker did not notify Mainstream appropriately about expiring domain names,then took over the domain names once they expired.

According to the suit:

Defendants engaged in practices that increased the likelihood that these domain names would lapse and fall outside the control and ownership of Mainstream. These practices included, but are not limited to, failing to provide appropriate expiration notices to Mainstream regarding these various domain names.
Moniker sends weekly notices to clients of expiring domains that are not set to auto-renew starting 75 days before the domains expire and continuing 21 days after the domains expire, according to the suit.

But Mainstream claims:

Upon information and belief, the weekly email notices regarding expiration which were required to be sent during the 99-day (sic) period were either never sent, or transmitted in a deliberate and capricious manner so that they would be blocked by Mainstream’s e-mail computer systems, including through their reasonable and standard spam filters.

Mainstream attached Moniker’s Domain Name Deletion and Auto-Renew Policy as an exhibit in the suit. It states: that the registrant should take action to whitelist Moniker’s email addresses to make sure it receives expiration notices.

Mainstream alleges that the defendants have converted about 83,000 domain names it previously owned. They also submitted evidence to substaniate a claim that they paid Moniker’s price of $132,965.00 to secure the return of 3,652 domain name registrations.... and got nothing.

Mainstream Advertising likely should have cut their loss. Viewing the domain names Moniker allegedly "acquired", the big question in this suit will be: Why would Moniker pay to renew this sh!t without having the money upfront?