No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Court clarified that government employees with actual contracting authority who consent to open-ended indemnification clauses in online terms of service violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, but those without such authority do not create binding government obligations through such consent.
Traditional principles of contract law govern the standard for consent to an online terms of service agreement, and, as a result, consent to such an agreement turns on whether the web user had reasonable notice of and manifested assent to the online agreement. A government employee with actual authority to contract on behalf of the United States violates the Anti-Deficiency Act by entering into an unrestricted, open-ended indemnification agreement on behalf of the government. A government employee who lacks authority to contract on behalf of the United States does not violate the Anti-Deficiency Act by consenting to an agreement, including an agreement containing an unrestricted, open-ended indemnification clause, because no binding obligation on the government was incurred.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
The Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who was acting in an administrative capacity under the Court's employment dispute resolution plan when he issued an order to the Office of Personnel Management, lacked the authority to direct OPM in its administration of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Accordingly, OPM is not legally required to comply with the directives in the order.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.