Please answer multiple-choice: AOL, LLC, mistakenly made public the personal information of six hundred fifty thousand of its members. The members filed a suit in California, alleging violations of federal law and California state law. The member agreement between AOL and its members included a provision declaring Virginia as the location of any court dispute. AOL asked the court to dismiss the suit on the basis of that forum-selection clause in its member agreement. Under a previous decision of the United States Supreme Court, a forum-selection clause is unenforceable if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought. California courts previously have held in other cases that clauses similar to the AOL clause contravene a strong public policy.

Identifying the Facts and Issues In deciding whether to dismiss the suit, the court in California first should look to primary sources of law, or sources that establish the law. Another resource for the court are the statutes passed by the United States select answer and the state select answer If the court cannot find any sources of law that establish or direct their decision to dismiss the suit, the court should then turn to select answer sources of law for guidance. If the California court turns to prior court opinions to determine if it should dismiss the suit, it is looking for select answer The system of prior court opinions is called select answer The California court will follow the decision of the United States Supreme Court because of the doctrine of select answer The United States Supreme Court decision is select answer on the California courts. Because of the United States Supreme Court opinion and the prior California cases regarding clauses of this type, the California court select answer enforce the clause in the contract. Because of the precedent set, the California court select answer dismiss the suit and the case will be heard in select answer What If the Facts Were Different? What if the United States Supreme Court had not issued the prior opinion and California courts also had not decided that those clauses contravene a strong public policy? This case would be a case of select answer in California. Without the prior guidance, the California courts likely would look to select answer authorities to help them reason through a decision