Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

as well, such as the American Bar Association, which hadobservers attending all drafting committee meetings and that isnormally called upon to endorse uniform acts produced by theNational Conference.20 The academic literature abounds withcritiques of UCITA21 and even regulatory bodies such as theFederal Trade Commission have expressed reservations about the554D (West Supp. 2001), 2000 Iowa Legis. Serv. H.D. 2205 (West) (last visited Aug. 8,2001), available athttp://www.legis.state.ia.us/GA/78GA/Legislation/HF/02200/HF02205/Current.html(codified at Iowa Code § 554D.104 (repealed 2001)) (“A choice of law provision . . . whichprovides that the contract is to be interpreted pursuant to the laws of a state that hasenacted the uniform computer information transactions Act . . . or any substantiallysimilar law, is voidable.”); Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, W. Va. Code § 55-8-15(2001), 2001 W. Va. Leg. Serv. 120 (West); Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, ch.2001 N.C. Sess. Laws 2001-295 sec. 66-329 (July 21, 2001). Ironically, at the time WestVirginia passed this provision, it was the home of the president of the NCCUSL. Morerecently, the New York Attorney General’s office proposed legislation would declarethat UCITA violates New York public policy. The concern of the N.Y. Attorney Generalwas the impact of UCITA on consumers, and particularly UCITA’s validation of clickwrapcontracting practices and licenses that “diminish significant rights andprotections established over many years for the protection of consumers” in New York.N.Y. Attorney General’s Legislative Program Bill No. 33-01, 12 BNA Electronic Com. &L. Rep. 288 (2001); see Am. Online, Inc. v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 699 (Cal.Ct. App. 2001) (invalidating a choice of forum and law clause invoking Virginia law,including UCITA, as contrary to California public policy.).20. Typically, upon the completion of new proposed uniform legislation, theNational Conference places the item on the agenda of the House of Delegates of theAmerican Bar Association for ratification by that group. In the year following thecompletion of UCITA, the National Conference submitted a resolution calling for ABAapproval of another piece of electronic commerce legislation, the Uniform ElectronicTransactions Act, but failed to put UCITA on the agenda of the House. To the extentthat this failure illustrated a perception that there would be a fight in the House overany such resolution, the perception has proven to be true. In the Summer of 2001, aresolution was introduced in the House that would disapprove of UCITA and call uponthe Conference to withdraw it as a proposed statute for state enactment. Thisresolution was withdrawn by its sponsor, the Torts Insurance and Practice Section,pending additional discussions between the ABA and the National Conference onsubstantive objections to UCITA. In January 2002 an ABA Working Group issued itsreport on UCITA, describing it as “a very complex statute for even knowledgeablelawyers to understand and apply,” and concluding that in addition to requiringsubstantial changes in many of its sections, UCITA should be “redrafted to make iteasier to understand and use.” American Bar Association Working Group Report onthe Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), Jan. 31, 2002, availableat http://www.abanet.org/leadership/ucita.pdf.21. See, e.g., Symposium, Intellectual Property and Contract Law in theInformation Age: The Impact of Article 2B of the Uniform Commercial Code on theFuture of Information and Commerce, 13 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 809 (1998) (criticizing thepredecessor of UCITA); Symposium, Intellectual Property and Contract Law for theInformation Age: The Impact of Article 2B of the Uniform Commercial Code on theFuture of Information and Commerce, 87 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (1999) (same).