Realogic Accuses Oracle of Deceptive Business Practices

By Pam Fulmer

In a legal battle unfolding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Realscape Group LLC, dba Realogic Solutions (“Realogic”), a small Ohio-based company, has sued Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”), one of the largest software corporations in the world. The case highlights the growing concerns around the deceptive business practices of large tech firms, particularly regarding the enforceability of hidden contract terms in software agreements.

The Core Issue: Software That Never Delivered

Realogic contends that Oracle represented that its NetSuite software was an "off-the-shelf" solution that would meet the company's business needs. However, after contract execution, Realogic soon discovered that the software did not perform as represented. The case centers around Oracle’s alleged failure to provide functional software as promised, locking Realogic and other customers into expensive subscription fee agreements without delivering a product that works.
 
Oracle, in response, has moved to dismiss the case or transfer it to the Northern District of California, which Realogic is contesting.

Realogic's Argument: Deceptive Practices and Hidden Contract Terms

At the heart of Realogic’s case is its claim that Oracle engaged in deceptive business practices by using misleading contract structures to attempt to bind customers to terms they never knowingly agreed to. Realogic asserts that Oracle never explicitly disclosed the terms and conditions of its Subscription Services Agreement (SSA). Instead, the SSA was hidden behind a complex series of hyperlinks in documents described as “Estimates” during the sales process.

Realogic makes the following points:

1.    Lack of Transparency: Oracle failed to provide clear and upfront notice of the terms and conditions that would govern the transaction. The terms were embedded in fine print and nondescript and disguised hyperlinks, buried deep in a complex document that was initially labeled an "Estimate." 
2.    No Meeting of the Minds: Realogic claims there was never a “meeting of the minds” on Oracle’s contract terms. Realogic argues that in contract law, both parties must know about and agree to the same terms for a contract to be enforceable. Given the deceptive manner in which the terms were presented, Realogic maintains it never agreed to Oracle’s SSA.
3.    Unenforceable Contract Terms: Ohio law allows contract terms to be incorporated by reference only when they are clear and specifically identified. Realogic contends that Oracle’s terms were not disclosed, rendering them unenforceable. Courts have often rejected contracts where terms were hidden behind inconspicuous hyperlinks, and Realogic argues this situation fits that precedent.

Oracle’s Defense: A Motion to Dismiss or Transfer

Oracle, on the other hand, argues that the case should be dismissed or, at the very least, transferred to a court in California. Oracle’s defense hinges on the assumption that Realogic agreed to the terms and conditions of Oracle’s SSA, including a forum selection clause, which would require the case to be heard in California. Realogic vehemently opposes this transfer, arguing that it never knowingly agreed to any terms that would set jurisdiction in California.

Oracle will likely argue that much of the legal authority cited by Realogic does not apply, because many of those cases are in the consumer context and are not business to business disputes.  Oracle may argue that businesses are held to a higher standard and cannot evade contractual obligations by neglecting to read contracts, even when those contracts are presented in a disguised hyperlink and not linked directly.  But we think the better question is can Oracle bind unsuspecting companies to one-sided contracts only referenced but not adequately disclosed in disguised hyperlinks?  Given this deceptive presentation, is there truly a meeting of the minds so as to form a binding contract?

As Realogic explains in its legal brief, the hyperlink does not link directly to the SSA.  Instead, the prospect is directed to a set of confusing pages on Oracle’s website and forced to search through multiple links for the applicable agreement.  Does anyone believe that the disguised and greyed out hyperlink (which is not set off in a conspicuous manner) that leads to a confusing web page and not the actual SSA is just happenstance?  Of course not.  In fact, we would not be surprised if Oracle used focus groups to determine the best way to present the SSA to prospects, so as to almost ensure that the hyperlinks are missed.  And for those folks that actually see the hyperlink and click on it, Oracle has arranged its website in such a way as to confuse the average lay person about what is the applicable agreement.  Perhaps a judge or a lawyer would not find the presentation confusing, but we know from experience that the type of companies that buy the NetSuite SuiteSuccess software product sure do.

Oracle is a very large, legally sophisticated, crafty, and ruthless company with legions of smart and talented in-house lawyers and some of the best outside counsel in the world.  The average SuiteSuccess customer is a small business, which is often owned by a husband-and-wife team.  These mom & pop companies are not in the business of enterprise software, and they rely on the representations and expertise of software experts like Oracle to accurately describe included functionality and to provide a working product.  They are honest companies that have grown their business through hard work and sacrifices, but who have reached the point that investing in an ERP software makes sense, so they can realize greater efficiencies and their businesses will prosper.  The cost of the software is not cheap, and the investment for the company is significant.  None of these companies can afford to pay tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to Oracle, for software that does not work. 

Implications for Small Businesses

This case could have important implications for small businesses that rely on enterprise software solutions provided by large corporations. It brings into focus the issues of fairness and transparency in contract agreements, especially when dealing with highly technical and complex products like software and large and sophisticated companies such as Oracle.

Conclusion: A Fight for Accountability
​
Realogic’s battle with Oracle highlights an all-too-common issue in the world of business software: unclear contracts and hidden terms that disproportionately benefit the software vendor. 

For now, the court must decide whether Realogic’s claims hold water, and whether Oracle’s attempts to dismiss or transfer the case are valid. Regardless of the decision, this case serves as a reminder for businesses—big and small—of the importance of clear and transparent contractual agreements.

Tactical Law helps companies resolve disputes with Oracle and other vendors over ERP software subscriptions and implementations.  We also advise companies on the pitfalls of Oracle contracts and what steps may be taken to potentially lower your risk of contracting with Oracle.