45 law clause, such as whether the clause will prevent him/her from raising certain arguments in court due to the applied foreign law. The courts held that understanding the implications of said clause is unpractical given the resources it would take. In view of these difficulties, for many years the courts’ prevailing approach was that a choice of law clause included in a user agreement, of international companies targeting Israeli consumers, is void. The courts provided indications as to which companies should be classified as those who target Israeli consumers, such as: the platform display is in Hebrew, enabling the transaction in NIS. The scope of the company's activity in Israel was also examined. The change in the approachoccurred following theSupremeCourt's ruling in CA No. 5860/16 Facebook Inc v. Ben Hamo (Published in Nevo, 31.5.2018) (the 'first Facebook ruling’), in which the Court examined Facebook's user agreement which included a clause that stated that any dispute between Facebook and its users will be governed by the laws of the State of California. Contrary to the former approach, the Supreme Court ruled that Facebook’s choice of law clause does not constitute an oppressive clause. The main rationale underlying the ruling was that the Californian legal system has similar characteristics to the Israeli one and is considered advanced in the field of class actions. The laws of the State of California are in English, a language understood by many Israelis, and are accessible through the internet. It was further held, that the choice of law clause’s purpose is to protect the legitimate business interest of the international company, that depends on the company being subject to a single legal system in order to arrange its operation wisely, particularly given its vast number of users around the globe. Additionally, the Court held the assumption that a consumer who files a class action for significant financial relief - will not be deterred from filing his lawsuit based on a foreign law. One important issue remained unsettled within the first Facebook ruling: whether a choice of lawclause could circumvent amandatory law. Since the case of Facebook dealt with an alleged privacy infringement, the issue regarding the status of an Israeli mandatory law, did not arise. Though, an obiter opinion was expressed that choice of law clauses should not be used to circumvent Israeli mandatory laws, such as the Consumer Protection Law. 5. 6.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=