had argued that the arbitration clause in the EULA was "both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and is itself evidence of defendants' scheme to deprive Plaintiff (and others) of both their money and their day in court." Robreno agreed, noting that the terms of service were presented by Linden Lab on a "take-it-or-leave-it-basis." However, he limited this holding by noting that a claim of unconscionability for a contract will only succeed if there are no "reasonably available market alternatives" available to the weaker party. This worked in Bragg's favor in the present case. Although there were numerous other online virtual worlds available to Bragg at the time, Judge Robreno noted that Second Life was unique in that it allowed participants to retain property rights in virtual land. Thus, the Second Life EULA was found to be unenforceable under contract law due to its unconscionable provisions. Impact and subsequent developments Bragg and Linden Lab later reached an out of court settlement in which Bragg's full "privileges and responsibilities to the Second Life community" were restored. At the time of the district court ruling, some commentators believed that it could become an important precedent on arbitration clauses and other unconscionable provisions that are forced upon Internet users by the operators of online games and platforms. However, the ruling turned out to be an outlier because later court disputes over objectionable EULAs were almost uniformly ruled in favor of Internet firms as long as users had a chance to read the terms of service with an obvious opportunity to accept or reject the terms before continuing to use the site or software. On the other hand, this ruling is often cited in later cases involving specific disputes within virtual world platforms in which property can be bought and sold. References 2007 in United States case law United States arbitration case law United States personal jurisdiction case law Second Life