In the case of C.M.D. v. Facebook, Facebook allowed a minor to create a Facebook account, but the minor had to accept Facebook's terms, which included using the minor's name and likeness in advertisements. The minor's parents sued Facebook, claiming the terms of the agreement were not enforceable against a minor, and also claiming that the minor disaffirmed the agreement with Facebook. How did the court rule?
A) There never was a contract because the minor lacked capacity.
B) The contract was illegal and therefore unenforceable.
C) As long as the parents knew their child had a Facebook account and allowed it, they impliedly accepted the terms on behalf of the minor.
D) Since the minor kept using Facebook he never disaffirmed it.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of In the case of C.M.D. v. Facebook, Facebook allowed a minor to create a Facebook account, but the minor had to accept Facebook's terms, which included using the minor's name and likeness in advertisements. The minor's parents sued Facebook, claiming the terms of the agreement were not enforceable against a minor, and also claiming that the minor disaffirmed the agreement with Facebook. How did the court rule?
A) There never was a contract because the minor lacked capacity.
B) The contract was illegal and therefore unenforceable.
C) As long as the parents knew their child had a Facebook account and allowed it, they impliedly accepted the terms on behalf of the minor.
D) Since the minor kept using Facebook he never disaffirmed it.

In the Case of C