100% Legal Real Marriages 7 days a week 24 hrs a day. All our licenses are issued from the courts. Call Now: (1-855-932-9333) or Whats App @ 1-702-319-1000
Policy: No Refunds or Cancellation : Call Customer Service Before Purchase for Questions or Concerns about the aforementioned statement: 202-681-9993
In a world where technology is rapidly changing and developing. The emerging non traditional services, procedures , case law , digital currency, online/virtual banking, virtual notary, the way we attend school, communicate, virtually appear /administer court hearing, and now get married are highly connect with technology. While we can't provide you legal advice we can offer some resources to help you understand our service. We do not issue marriage licenses or offer legal services. The service that we provide is not consider an proxy marriage. Being that we require the newly weds to attend and participate in the ceremony as themselves. Our marriage license are obtain directly from the courts. Our ceremonies are performed in person or by our technolgy komuteque via our app webwed mobile. Komuteque is an form of technology that amalgametes webrtc and open source intelligence to provide cyber jurisdictions. Thus, creating an optical indirect human experience that brings you into our jurisdiction/envirnonment. We have combined the three most powerful elements in the world love, law, and technology.
Cyber Jurisdiction vs Proxy
Principles of Jurisdiction Paper Produced by Betsy Rosenblatt (Please note that the footnotes do not appear in the HTML version of this paper. If you would like a word processing version with footnotes, please email your teaching fellow with your request). I. Inroduction One of the advantages of the Internet over other methods of communication and commerce is that it enables access to a much wider, even a worldwide, audience. Spatial distance and national borders are irrelevant to the creation of an Internet business, many of which are conceived for the express purpose of expanding sales horizons across borders. In a sense, a person can be everywhere in the world, all at once. This ease of communication raises a vital legal question, however: when a person puts up a website on his home server and allows access to it from all points on the globe, does he subject himself to the governance of every law- and rule-maker in the world? Under the current system, in order to decide what state's or nation's laws govern disputes that arise over Internet issues, a court first must decide "where" Internet conduct takes place, and what it means for Internet activity to have an "effect" within a state or nation. Even apart from the Internet, this border-centric view of the law creates certain difficulties in an economy moving toward globalization. Entire bodies of law have been developed by every nation to deal with the resolution of international conflicts of law, conflicts that arise when geography and citizenship would allow a dispute to be decided by the laws of more than one country, and the laws of those countries are not consistent with each other. Conflicts of law are particularly likely to arise in cyberspace, where the location of an occurrence is never certain, where ideological differences are likely to create conflicting laws, and where rules are made not only by nations and their representatives, but also by sub-national and transnational institutions. II. The test currently in force A. In the United States A court does not have power over every person in the world. Before a court may decide a case, the court must determine whether it has "personal jurisdiction" over the parties. A plaintiff may not sue a defendant in a jurisdiction foreign to the defendant, unless that defendant has established some relationship with that forum that would lead him to reasonably anticipate being sued there. In the U.S., the Due Process clause of the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment sets the outermost limits of personal jurisdiction. If a party has substantial systematic and continuous contacts with the forum, a court may exercise jurisdiction over a party for any dispute, even one arising out of conduct unrelated to the forum. This is known as general jurisdiction. For example, a corporation or person can always be sued in its state of residence or citizenship or its principal place of business, regardless of whether or not the claim arose there. If a party is not present in the state or does not have systematic and continuous contacts with the state, courts may exercise jurisdiction over a party for causes of action arising out of his contacts with the state, or arising out of activities taking place outside the state expressly intended to cause an effect within the state. This "effects" test is described from the American Law Institute's Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 37 (1971), which provides: "A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over an individual who causes effects in the state by an act done elsewhere with respect to any cause of action arising from these effects unless the nature of the effects and of the individual's relationship to the state make the exercise of such jurisdiction unreasonable." To do this, the court must look to the state's "long-arm" statute, which sets the parameters for the state's exercise of its constitutional power to govern conduct by non-citizens (including both Americans and foreigners). Long-arm statutes vary widely from state to state. For example, Arizona grants the broadest possible freedom to its courts: "Arizona will exert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident litigant to the maximum extent allowed by the federal constitution." New York, on the other hand, gives a more restricted and specific charge to its courts with its statute, which allows personal jurisdiction over those who transact business or commit a tortious act within the state of New York, and over those who commit an act outside the state that could reasonably be expected to have a tortious effect within New York. The Federal courts have the equivalent of a long-arm statute of their own, in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k) (Rule 4(k)), which provides three basic grants of jurisdiction. First, it authorizes federal courts to "borrow" the long-arm statute of the state in which the federal court is located. Second, Rule 4(k) authorizes federal courts to exercise grants of personal jurisdiction contained in federal statutes, such as the federal securities and antitrust law, which have their own jurisdiction provisions. And third, Rule 4(k)(2) grants long-arm jurisdiction in an international context, within the boundaries of the Constitution, over parties to cases arising under federal law who are not subject to the jurisdiction of any particular state. The concept of being able to have minimum contacts with the United States as a whole has profound implications for the Internet and international jurisdiction. Users all over the world, without establishing contacts in a particular state, could establish contacts with the entire country with nearly every foray into cyberspace. In order to be subject to personal jurisdiction in a state that is not his domicile, not only must a person fit under the ambit of the state's "long-arm" statute, but also the state's jurisdiction must be valid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court set the standard for constitutional exercise of jurisdiction in International Shoe Co. v. Washington. Pursuant to the Due Process Clause, a nonresident defendant may not be sued in a forum unless it has first established sufficient "minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." In addition, the nonresident's "conduct and connection with the forum [must be] such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." This test relies on courts to decide, according to "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice," what contacts are sufficient. Courts will generally hold that contacts are sufficient to satisfy due process only if the nonresident "purposefully availed" itself of the benefits of being present in, or doing business in, the forum. According to a the plurality of the Supreme Court in Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court, a connection sufficient for minimum contacts may arise through an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State. The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State, but advertising or marketing in the forum state may fulfill the deliberate availment requirement. There must be clear evidence that the defendant sought to serve the particular market. If the minimum contacts test is met, a court may only exercise jurisdiction if it is "reasonable" to do so. In determining reasonableness, a court must weigh and consider the burden on the defendant to litigate in the forum, the forum state's interests in the matter, the interest of the plaintiff in obtaining relief, efficiency in resolving the conflict in the forum, and the interests of several states in furthering certain fundamental social policies. In sum, under U.S. law. if it is reasonable to do so, a court in one state will exercise jurisdiction over a party in another state or country whose conduct has substantial effects in the state and whose conduct constitutes sufficient contacts with the state to satisfy due process. Because this jurisdictional test is ambiguous, courts in every state of the U.S. may be able to exercise jurisdiction over parties anywhere in the world, based solely on Internet contacts with the state. B. Internationally There is little dispute that nation-states can prosecute Internet users (or anyone else, for that matter), whatever their location, for revealing national secrets, falsifying official documents, or inciting war. These activities threaten national security, wherever they are committed, and therefore fall under international standards for jurisdiction. Similarly, it is a universal crime to publicly incite torture or genocide. These universal offenses may be prosecuted extraterritorially by any nation, regardless of the citizenship or location of the user. These are easy cases, however. Nations may also be interested in enforcing non-universal laws extraterritorially; for example, In Germany, it is illegal to import distribute material espousing a Nazi or Neo-Nazi viewpoint. Such material is not difficult to find in USENet or on the World Wide Web. German authorities may be interested not only in interpreting German laws to classify Internet viewing as "importation" of material, but also (in part because of the difficulty of locating those who break an importation statute without leaving their own homes) in prosecuting those who make such material available to Germans via the Internet. If German authorities attempted to prosecute a U.S. citizen r resident for such an offense, however, they would be met with geat opposition by the U.S., which certainly would not enforce any judgment against the U.S. citizen in such a case, because the German statute violates U.S. Constitutional principles. Umder U.S. law, because it would be prohibitively difficult to prevent German users from viewing such a site and therefore the result of such a prosecution would be to chill otherwise legal (if unpleasant) speech in the U.S. Under the current system, it is possible to envision that German courts may have jurisdiction over Americans who publish such material, even though the material may not be "purposefully directed" (one interpretation of the American standard ) toward Germany in the way a mailing of flyers would be. As discussed above, U.S. courts apply the same "effects" test to foreign parties as to American parties. If minimum contacts exist, parties from other countries may be haled into court in the United States just as parties from one state may be haled into another. Similarly, Americans may be tried by courts in other countries depending on the rules of that country. Although each country's laws are different, most rely on some sort of "effects" test resembling the U.S. test, whereby a party is subject to jurisdiction in a place where his conduct has an effect. This jurisdiction traditionally is subject to a "reasonableness" test. According to section 421 of the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the U.S., exercise of jurisdiction is generally reasonable if the party is a citizen, resident, or domiciliary of the state, or if: . . . (g) the person, whether natural or personal, has consented to the exercise of jurisdiction; (h) the person, whether natural or juridical, regularly carries on business in the state; (i) the person, whether natural or juridical, had carried on activity in the state, but only in respect of such activity; (j) the person, whether natural or juridical, had carried on outside the state an activity having a substantial, direct, and foreseeable effect within the state, but only in respect of such activity; or (k)the thing that is the subject of adjudication is owned, possessed, or used in the state, but only in respect of a claim reasonably connected with that thing. This standard differs somewhat from the U.S. standard for interstate exercise of jurisdiction; for example, transitory presence (known as "tag" jurisdiction), accepted in the U.S., is not generally accepted as a method of international jurisdiction. Every nation has an obligation to exercise moderation and restraint in invoking jurisdiction over cases that have a foreign element, and they should avoid undue encroachment on the jurisdiction of other States. Although countries are given great discretion in deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction over conduct in other countries, international law dictates that a country exercising its jurisdiction in an overly self-centered way not only contravenes international law, but can also "disturb the international order and produce political, legal, and economic reprisals." Based on this traditional moderation, and the relatively high threshold of the "reasonableness" standard discussed above, it is unlikely that foreign nations will have the sort of long-arm power over citizens of other nations as states have over citizens of other states within the U.S. today. Scholars have suggested that individual persons and small commercial entities whose only contacts with a nation are on-line are, in all likelihood, more insulated from international jurisdiction than they are from interstate jurisdiction. This is largely speculative, however, because international Internet jurisdiction cases have thus far been rare, and nations have not hesitated to pass laws conferring global jurisdiction for Internet activities. III. Application of the "effects" test to the Internet A. in the United States The Supreme Court has not discussed the impact that technology might have on the analysis of personal jurisdiction. Lower courts, on the other hand, have explored the question of cyberspace jurisdiction. While most have held that merely creating and hosting a website available to all does not subject a person to general jurisdiction everywhere in the U.S., they diverge widely as to whether the presence of such a site will lead to specific jurisdiction over the party for the purposes of disputes arising from the website. Some decisions suggest that a court may obtain personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant whose sole contact with the forum state arose through the Internet. Examples of these include: CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, and Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold. In each of these cases, Internet contacts with the forum state exceeded those of a passive website: In CompuServe, the defendant knowingly reached out to and did business with CompuServe, knowing that CompuServe was an Ohio corporation. In addition, the dispute arose out of contacts with the forum state. In Zippo, the defendant's site required participants to submit address information in order to receive a news service; therefore, the site operators knowingly transacted business with residents of the forum state, where the plaintiff was headquartered. In Panavision, the defendant had set up his web site as part of a "scam" to make the plaintiff purchase the domain name from him, and as such had intentionally directed his actions toward the plaintiff's home state. In Maritz, the defendant's site invited users to send and receive information about services it offered, and the defendant company had send information to over 100 users in the forum state. The court found that "[a]lthough [defendant] characterizes its activity as merely maintaining a 'passive website,' its intent is to reach all Internet users, regardless of geographic location." Two other recent decisions, in declining to exercise jurisdiction, support the notion that passive Internet sites are not sufficient to support jurisdiction. In McDonough v. Fallon McElligott, Inc., a Minnesota defendant had displayed plaintiff's photographs on the Web without plaintiff's consent, in possible violation of California copyright and unfair competition laws. The Southern District of California held that: "Because the Web enables easy world-wide access, allowing computer interaction via the Web to supply sufficient contacts to establish jurisdiction would eviscerate the personal jurisdiction requirement as it currently exists . . . . Thus, [having] a Web site used by Californians cannot establish jurisdiction by itself." Similarly, in Benusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, the Southern District of New York held that the operator of a small Missouri jazz club called "The Blue Note" did not subject it to New York's trademark laws by erecting an advertising site on the Web. The New York district court's holding in Benusan is at direct loggerheads with the District of Connecticut's holding in Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc. In Inset, a party utilizing the trademark of another company for its domain name and "800" number was subject to jurisdiction in the home of the party whose mark was infringed. Also in seeming conflict with Benusan and most other U.S. interstate Internet jurisdiction cases, the Federal Circuit found in Graphic Controls Corp. v. Utah Medical Prods., Inc., that a Utah corporation's activities, which included having an open-access website for ordering goods, having an "800" number, having meetings in New York unrelated to the cause of action, and sending "cease and desist" letters to party in New York, did not constitute minimum contacts with New York. In similar conflict with the above cases, the Southern District of New York held that creating a commercial and interactive (though not yet operational at the time of litigation) website that was available to, and used by, New York residents was not in itself enough contact to subject a publisher to New York jurisdiction in Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger. The District court found that exercising jurisdiction would violate traditional notions of fair play, and noted that the site operator did not purposefully direct his activities toward New York. The disagreements between the cases above illustrate some of the variety among courts as to the proper approach to take when dealing with Internet jurisdiction. Approaches differed greatly, even among some of the above cases having similar final outcomes. States have not regularized an approach to the Internet, preferring to analogize it to real space. Erecting a website has been compared to publishing in a widely distributed general-interest magazine or putting an item (with the capacity to travel) in the stream of commerce by selling it locally. As the above illustrate, courts seem to be taking an approach resembling that recently laid down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., which held that the mere presence of a passive website on the Internet does not constitute the minimum contacts needed to subject a person to the jurisdiction of every court and that "something more," either interactivity or purposeful direction, is needed to justify jurisdiction. What degree of interactivity is required to constitute minimum contacts, however, remains largely unclear from case law. Under the rule set forth in Cybersell, a court would decide whether a website creates minimum contacts by examining the degree to which the site is commercial and interactive, and the degree to which the site is directed at citizens of the forum state. The more interactive a site is (i.e. the more exchange of information is possible between the site and the user), and the more commercial the site's nature, the more likely a court is to find that contact exists between the site owner and the distant user. Similarly, the more the site is directed at an audience in the forum site or designed to harm citizens of the forum state, the more likely a court will be to find that purposeful availment has occurred. Still, the Supreme Court has not addressed the issue of persona jurisdiction in cyberspace and many details still remain unresolved. B. Internationally U.S. courts have, basically, shoehorned Internet cases into the same jurisdictional rules that they use for non-Internet cases, with the result that U.S. courts lean toward limiting jurisdiction, regulating only sites that intentionally direct themselves into the U.S. in some way. Other countries have not limited their courts so. Several examples illustrate that jurisdictional issues are at least as severe and jumbled in the international context as they are within the domestic U.S. In the United Kingdom, the Financial Services Act of 1996 makes it a criminal offense to place investment ads in the U.K. unless they are issued or approved by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). In early 1998, the FSA notified the national U.S. mutual fund association that mutual fund Web sites which can be brought up on a screen in the U.K. are considered to have been issued in the U.K. This could have had a profound impact on the way in which U.S. mutual fund sites operated, however, the FSA stated that it would not take enforcement action against U.S. companies that complied with certain FSA regulations, including placing disclaimers or warnings on their Web sites. Germany has passed a sweeping law that subjects any Web site accessible in Germany to German law, holding Internet service providers (ISPs) liable for violations of German content laws if the providers were aware of the content and were reasonably able to remove the content. This followed the settlement of a well-publicized incident between Germany and CompuServe, in which German authorities threatened to prosecute CompuServe for allegedly pornographic news groups. In response to the German threat, CompuServe blocked access to those newsgroups to all users, approximately 4 million worldwide. Later, CompuServe restored access and distributed free software for blocking pornography. This caused CompuServe's indictment for aiding in the distribution of pornography and computer games. Prosecutors charged that CompuServe did not do enough to block Germans from accessing the material. Malaysia's new cyberspace law also extends well beyond the borders of Malaysia. The bill applies to offenses committed by a person in any place, inside or outside of Malaysia, if at the relevant time the computer, program, or data was either (i) in Malaysia or (ii) capable of being connected to or sent to or used by or with a computer in Malaysia. The offender is liable regardless of his nationality or citizenship. IV. Conflicts of Law As mentioned above, the Constitution and states' long-arm statutes may permit court jurisdiction over out-of-state conduct, depending on the specific long-arm statute and the conduct involved. This means that many states may have concurrent jurisdiction over the same conduct. A similar situation exists in the international context. Because it is generally accepted as a matter of international law that nations may govern conduct of citizens of the nation taking place outside the nation, conduct by non-nationals that take place elsewhere but has significant and intended effects in the state or nation, conduct that threatens the sovereignty or security of the nation, and conduct that constitutes a universal crime such as torture and genocide, many situations may arise in which several nations' laws could govern the same conduct. To use a real-space example, imagine that A (an American shipping company) ships a batch of B's widgets from New York to B in Belgium, by way of France. The widgets are damaged during the French stopover and that this damage gave rise to a cause of action in tort between A and B. Assuming that A had significant enough contacts with both France and Belgium to warrant jurisdiction in both courts, B could sue A in the U.S., in France, or in Belgium, depending on which legal system would treat B more favorably. Additionally, B could sue in U.S. court but request that the court apply Belgian law to the dispute, or sue in Belgian court but request that the court apply French law, or any other combination of courts and laws. The many applicable laws will not necessarily be substantively compatible. Different states and nations will have different interests and each will want its laws to govern each dispute. This situation becomes extremely poignant when laws are not only inconsistent, but also incompatible; for example, in some states of the U.S., it is illegal to provide or engage in Internet gambling, but in Liechtenstein, such gambling is government-sponsored. Although the situation of inconsistent laws occurs with moderate frequency now (especially in the antitrust and securities fields) it is likely to become even more common as cyber-commerce becomes more prevalent. This is because, in cyberspace, cross-border transactions are no more difficult than transactions with local parties. When conflicts of law arise, courts must decide which law will govern. A court need not decide a dispute according to its own law; for example, a court deciding a dispute arising out of an automobile accident in another state would be likely to apply the driving standards of the state where the dispute arose, rather than of the forum state. Several methods exist to aid courts in the decision between laws. Historically, U.S. courts decided a dispute according to the law in the lex loci delicti, the "place of the wrong." In transnational cyberspace, however, the place of the wrong might be any of the nations that are on-line. There is no lex loci delicti. The Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law rejected this historical formulation, preferring the so-called "most significant relationship" test, which values (1) the needs of the international system; (2) relevant policies of the nation in which the suit was brought; (3) the relevant policies of all interested states; (4) justified expectations of the parties; (5) certainty, predictability, and uniformity; (6) and ease of administration. Several other approaches to choice of law have also been posited and accepted by some courts. The "center of gravity" approach, first adopted by the Court of Appeals of New York, might be characterized as a simplified version of the "most significant relationship" test of the Second Restatement. This approach authorizes courts to look at all the existing contacts between the various parties to a suit and various jurisdictions. Ultimately, the court should choose the law of whatever jurisdiction is most closely tied to the case. Legal scholar Brainerd Currie espoused the "interest" approach, which encouraged courts to look to the history of the applicable laws and, if the laws of one state could be applied without impairing the other state's interests, those laws were to apply. In the case of a true conflict, in which one state's interests would always be impaired, Currie suggested using the law of the forum. California has accepted this approach, but instead of automatically applying the law of the forum in true conflicts cases, applies a "comparative impairment" analysis and applies the law of the state that creates the least impairment. Finally, professor Robert Leflar has devised a test in which courts consider 1) predictability of result, (2) maintenance of interstate and international order, (3) simplification of the judicial task, (4) advancement of the forum’s governmental interests, and (5) application of the better rule of law. Currently, U.S. states and the U.S. itself take a variety of approaches; none of the above approaches have been universally accepted. Interestingly, most approaches other than the "place of wrong" approach eliminate the need to decide "where" the conduct in question occurred before deciding what law governs (although determining the location of an action may help create the list of nations' laws from which to choose). As the few reported cases show, however, courts may ignore traditional choice-of-law principles entirely and simply apply forum law to Internet-related disputes. Indeed, at least one state, responding to the problem of Internet-based gambling, has announced an intention to apply its own law to lawsuits resulting from in-state Internet contacts. The Minnesota Attorney General’s office, has interpreted existing Minnesota law to prohibit all forms of on-line gambling, and noting that "[g]ambling is just one example of illegal activity on the Internet" and "the same jurisdictional principles apply with equal force to any illegal activity." Courts have tended to apply the law of the forum state in Internet cases, without discussion. It should be noted that many Internet activities are commercial and that many of these involve contractual transactions. These contracts may contain choice-of-law clauses defining what state's law will govern any dispute arising out of the transaction. Most ISPs, for example, include choice of law clauses in their service agreements; such clauses may greatly simplify choice of law questions on the Internet, as choice of law clauses are, for the most part, honored as a matter of international law. Many Internet activities are not commercial or even transaction-oriented, however, and choice of law clauses may not cure problems arising from non-transaction-oriented activities. Case law does not indicate what route courts might take in resolving true choice of law disputes arising from such activities. One commentator has suggested the creation of a choice-of-law treaty for the Internet. V. Practical Implications of these laws: Looking to the future Many questions remain about how courts will fit the Internet into the current system of jurisdiction. For this reason, people do not know what laws to live by. Although most people know the laws of their domicile state, many do not know the laws of states with which they will be interacting; therefore, under the current system, it remains entirely possible that a person could be haled into court in a foreign land for something that is perfectly legal in his domicile. Simply put, the "effects" test doesn't work. It is true that states and nations are perfectly within their power in prosecuting foreign parties who provide illegal services (for example, a Nevada site that provides gambling to a Minnesota resident), and foreigners who commit crimes (for example, an American who posts names of businesspeople on a site available to Chinese dissidents). However, the architecture of the Internet makes it easy for people to obfuscate their identity and location and it is therefore impractical, under the current architectural regime, to make sites provide and deny service based on a person's identity; yet, that is exactly what the current legal system requires. Most importantly, under the current regime, people can unwittingly open themselves to liability, by posting information on the Web that they consider proper. For example, a local company with the same name as a different company across the country and thereby expose itself to trademark liability; or an American could put up a site containing photos of women in short skirts, thereby exposing himself to criminal liability in countries under Islamic law. If the current legal system is to maintain effective and fair control over the Internet, courts all over the world will have to make a clear move toward a new test for jurisdiction, and a consistent test for resolving choice of law disputes. If courts could agree to exercise jurisdiction based on an effects test with a much stronger element of purposeful availment than exists in the current system, the current style of legal governance might be able to serve the Internet in an effective and consistent way, without the excessive and unpredictable elements that it currently suffers from. For the purposes of fairness, mere awareness that a site could be accessed at a location would not be enough to trigger jurisdiction; rather, in order to be subjected to jurisdiction in a place other than his domicile or its primary place of business, a party would have to display intent to reach the audience in that location through advertising or special targeting subject matter, or a positive awareness of an audience's locations by way of interactions involving the exchange of information about realspace location. Under such a system, a party would still be subject to jurisdiction in its home state or nation, but not in a foreign jurisdiction unless the party sought out an audience in that foreign jurisdiction. Such a system would put the burden on state and local authorities to prevent the viewing of illegal material and to focus on laws regarding the use of illegal material, rather than laws the provision of such material. As hey are today, transactions would be susceptible to the jurisdiction of the domiciles of all parties involved and any jurisdiction in which the transaction was definitively intended to have an effect. A proxy marriage is a marriage where the parties were not physically present in the presence of each other. Someone stands in for the other party because either the bride or the groom is not physically present for the wedding. During the solemnization of the marriage, based upon a power of attorney, an agent acts on behalf of one of the parties. The marriage is presumed valid if it is valid in the country that performs the ceremony. Mostly compared and used in military marriages, and maximum security facility. Marriage by proxy, with only one party to the marriage making an appearance, is possible in the United States. It is always necessary for one of the two parties (either husband or wife) to actually appear before the Civil Authorities.
Written Authorization for Third Person to Act as Proxy
If a party to a marriage is unable to be present at the solemnization, that party may authorize in writing a third person to act as his proxy. If the person solemnizing the marriage is satisfied that the absent party is unable to be present and has consented to the marriage, he or she may solemnize the marriage by proxy. If he or she is not satisfied, the parties may petition the court for an order permitting the marriage to be solemnized by proxy.
Proxy Marriages Allowed in Four States
Marriage by proxy has been around a long time. Proxy marriages are most common during wartime. Marriages by proxy are allowed in California, Colorado, Texas, and Montana.
Whether a state ,country, or branch of the armed forces will recognize our marriage seems to depend on whether or not the law of the locale requires that both parties be present physically to apply for a license or to give their consent at the ceremony. Some states recognize a proxy marriage that was done in another state. Other states only recognize them as common law marriage. U.S. military personnel may annul a proxy marriage provided there is no consummation, no cohabitation, or no treatment as husband and wife after the marriage ceremony.
Unconsummated proxy marriages are not recognized for immigration purposes in most countries, including the United States. However, a party of an unconsummated proxy marriage may enjoy immigration benefits as a fiance of the opposite party is a U.S. citizen. This service is not recomended for people seeking anything regarding immigration, visa, and or citizenship. . Please consult with immigration attorney. We are not attorneys and we do not give legal advise.
Common law marriage should not be confused with non-marital relationship contracts, which involves two people living together without holding themselves out to the world as spouses and/or without legal recognition as spouses in the jurisdiction where the contract was formed. Non-marital relationship contracts are not necessarily recognized from one jurisdiction to another whereas common law marriages are, by definition, legally valid marriages worldwide - provided the parties complied with the requirements to form a valid marriage while living in a jurisdiction that still allows this irregular form of marriage to be contracted - as was historically the case under the common law of England (hence the name, "common law marriage").
Common law and statutory marriage have the following characteristics in common:
1. Both parties must freely consent to the marriage
2. Both parties must be of legal age to contract a marriage or have parental consent to marry
3. Neither party may be under a disability that prevents him or her from entering into a valid marriage - e.g. they must both be of sound mind, neither of them can be currently married (except in Saskatchewan), and some jurisdictions do not permit prisoners to marry.
Otherwise, common law marriage differs from statutory marriage as follows:
1. There is no marriage license issued by a government and no marriage certificate filed with a government
2. There is no formal ceremony to solemnize the marriage before witnesses
3. The parties must hold themselves out to the world as husband and wife (this is not a requirement of statutory marriage)
4. Most jurisdictions require the parties to be cohabiting at the time the common law marriage is formed. Some require cohabitation to last a certain length of time (e.g. three years) for the marriage to be valid. But cohabitation alone does not create a marriage.
The parties must intend their relationship to be, and to be regarded as, a legally valid marriage
When a marriage is validly contracted, whether according by statutory provision or according to common law, the marriage can be dissolved only by a formal legal proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction - usually a family or probate court.
In the U.S. state of Texas, a new provision was added to the Family Code; either partner in a common law marriage has two years after separation to file an action in order to prove that the common law marriage existed. To use the provision, the separation must have occurred after September 1, 1989.
Since the mid-1990s, the term "common law marriage" has been used in parts of Europe and Canada to describe various types of domestic partnership between persons of the same sex as well those of the opposite sex. Although these interpersonal statuses are often, as in Hungary, called "common law marriage" they differ from true common law marriage in that they are not legally recognized as "marriages" but are a parallel interpersonal status, known in most jurisdictions as "domestic partnership", "registered partnership", "conjugal union" or "civil union" etc.
Not all agreements break statutes. Some are illegal because they break public policy, which is generally "to discourage any interference with the freedom of choice" (Saskatchewan, Canada, excepted). An agreement forbidding a party to marry or bribing a party to refrain from marriage is considered "Interference with Marriage Relation" or an "Agreement in Restraint of Marriage"; such agreements are typically held to be nonbonding.
Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community or peers. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage, which does not exist in some countries, is marriage without religious content carried out by a government institution in accordance with the marriage laws of the jurisdiction, and recognized as creating the rights and obligations intrinsic to matrimony. Marriages can be performed in a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting via a wedding ceremony.
In the United States, same-sex marriage has been legal nationwide since June 26, 2015, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. The court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the refusal to recognize those marriages performed in other jurisdictions violates the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The ruling overturned a precedent, Baker v. Nelson.
While civil rights campaigning took place from the 1970s, the issue became prominent from around 1993, when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition was unconstitutional. The ruling led to federal actions and actions by several states, to restrict marriage to male-female couples, in particular the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). During the period 2003 - 2015, various lower court decisions, state legislation, and popular referendums had already legalized same-sex marriage to some degree in thirty-eight out of fifty U.S. states, in the U.S. territory Guam, and in the District of Columbia. In 2013 the Supreme Court overturned a key provision of DOMA, declaring part of it unconstitutional and in breach of the Fifth Amendment in United States v. Windsor because it "single[d] out a class of persons" for discrimination, by refusing to treat their marriages equally under federal law when state law had created them equally valid. The ruling led to the federal government's recognition of same-sex marriage, with federal benefits for married couples connected to either the state of residence or the state in which the marriage was solemnized. However the ruling focused on the provision of DOMA responsible for the federal government refusing to acknowledge State sanctioned same-sex marriages, leaving the question of state marriage laws itself to the individual States. The Supreme Court addressed that question two years later in 2015, ruling, in Obergefell, that same-sex married couples were to be constitutionally accorded the same recognition as opposite-sex couples at state/territory levels, as well as at federal level.
A proxy wedding or (proxy marriage) is a wedding in which one or both of the individuals being united are not physically present, usually being represented instead by other persons. If both partners are absent a double proxy wedding occurs.
Marriage by proxy is usually resorted to either when a couple wish to marry but one or both partners cannot attend for reasons such as military service, imprisonment, or travel restrictions; or when a couple lives in a jurisdiction in which they cannot legally marry.
Proxy weddings are not recognized as legally binding in most jurisdictions: both parties must be present. A proxy marriage contracted elsewhere may be recognized where proxy marriage within the jurisdiction is not; for example, Israel recognizes proxy marriages abroad between Israelis who might not have been permitted to marry in Israel.
Last updated: January 01, 2018
Please read these Terms and Conditions ("Terms", "Terms and Conditions") carefully before using the website and the WEB WED mobile application (together, or individually, the "Service") operated by WEB WED, INC ("us", "we", or “our").
Your access to and use of the Service is conditioned upon your acceptance of and compliance with these Terms. These Terms apply to all visitors, users and others who wish to access or use the Service.
By accessing or using the Service you agree to be bound by these Terms. If you disagree with any part of the terms then you do not have permission to access the Service.
By creating an Account on our service, you agree to subscribe to newsletters, marketing or promotional materials and other information we may send. However, you may opt out of receiving any, or all, of these communications from us by following the unsubscribe link or instructions provided in any email we send.
If you wish to purchase any product or service made available through the Service ("Purchase"), you may be asked to supply certain information relevant to your Purchase including, without limitation, your credit card number, the expiration date of your credit card, your billing address, and your shipping information.
You represent and warrant that: (i) you have the legal right to use any credit card(s) or other payment method(s) in connection with any Purchase; and that (ii) the information you supply to us is true, correct and complete.
We reserve the right to refuse or cancel your order at any time for reasons including but not limited to: product or service availability, errors in the description or price of the product or service, error in your order or other reasons.
We reserve the right to refuse or cancel your order if fraud or an unauthorized or illegal transaction is suspected.
Availability, Errors and Inaccuracies
We are constantly updating product and service offerings on the Service. We may experience delays in updating information on the Service and in our advertising on other web sites. The information found on the Service may contain errors or inaccuracies and may not be complete or current. Products or services may be mis-priced, described inaccurately, or unavailable on the Service and we cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information found on the Service.
We therefore reserve the right to change or update information and to correct errors, inaccuracies, or omissions at any time without prior notice.
Contests, Sweepstakes and Promotions
Some parts of the Service are billed on a subscription basis ("Subscription(s)"). You will be billed in advance on a recurring and periodic basis ("Billing Cycle"). Billing cycles are set on a monthly basis.
At the end of each Billing Cycle, your Subscription will automatically renew under the exact same conditions unless you cancel it or WEB WED, INC cancels it. You may cancel your Subscription renewal either through your online account management page or by contacting WEB WED, INC customer support team.
A valid payment method, including credit card or Stripe, is required to process the payment for your Subscription. You shall provide WEB WED, INC with accurate and complete billing information including full name, address, state, zip code, telephone number, and a valid payment method information. By submitting such payment information, you automatically authorize WEB WED, INC to charge all Subscription fees incurred through your account to any such payment instruments.
Should automatic billing fail to occur for any reason, WEB WED, INC will issue an electronic invoice indicating that you must proceed manually, within a certain deadline date, with the full payment corresponding to the billing period as indicated on the invoice.
WEB WED, INC, in its sole discretion and at any time, may modify the Subscription fees for the Subscriptions. Any Subscription fee change will become effective at the end of the then-current Billing Cycle.
WEB WED, INC will provide you with a reasonable prior notice of any change in Subscription fees to give you an opportunity to terminate your Subscription before such change becomes effective.
Your continued use of the Service after the Subscription fee change comes into effect constitutes your agreement to pay the modified Subscription fee amount.
Except when required by law, paid Subscription or any Service fees are non-refundable.
Our Service allows you to post, link, store, share and otherwise make available certain information, text, graphics, videos, or other material ("Content"). You are responsible for the Content that you post on or through the Service, including its legality, reliability, and appropriateness.
By posting Content on or through the Service, You represent and warrant that: (i) the Content is yours (you own it) and/or you have the right to use it and the right to grant us the rights and license as provided in these Terms, and (ii) that the posting of your Content on or through the Service does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights or any other rights of any person or entity. We reserve the right to terminate the account of anyone found to be infringing on a copyright.
You retain any and all of your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Service and you are responsible for protecting those rights. We take no responsibility and assume no liability for Content you or any third party posts on or through the Service. However, by posting Content using the Service you grant us the right and license to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Content on and through the Service. You agree that this license includes the right for us to make your Content available to other users of the Service, who may also use your Content subject to these Terms.
WEB WED, INC has the right but not the obligation to monitor and edit all Content provided by users.
In addition, Content found on or through this Service are the property of WEB WED, INC or used with permission. You may not distribute, modify, transmit, reuse, download, repost, copy, or use said Content, whether in whole or in part, for commercial purposes or for personal gain, without express advance written permission from us.
When you create an account with us, you guarantee that you are above the age of 18, and that the information you provide us is accurate, complete, and current at all times. Inaccurate, incomplete, or obsolete information may result in the immediate termination of your account on the Service.
You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your account and password, including but not limited to the restriction of access to your computer and/or account. You agree to accept responsibility for any and all activities or actions that occur under your account and/or password, whether your password is with our Service or a third-party service. You must notify us immediately upon becoming aware of any breach of security or unauthorized use of your account.
You may not use as a username the name of another person or entity or that is not lawfully available for use, a name or trademark that is subject to any rights of another person or entity other than you, without appropriate authorization. You may not use as a username any name that is offensive, vulgar or obscene.
We reserve the right to refuse service, terminate accounts, remove or edit content, or cancel orders in our sole discretion.
We respect the intellectual property rights of others. It is our policy to respond to any claim that Content posted on the Service infringes on the copyright or other intellectual property rights ("Infringement") of any person or entity.
If you are a copyright owner, or authorized on behalf of one, and you believe that the copyrighted work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, please submit your claim via email to , with the subject line: "Copyright Infringement" and include in your claim a detailed description of the alleged Infringement as detailed below, under "DMCA Notice and Procedure for Copyright Infringement Claims”
You may be held accountable for damages (including costs and attorneys' fees) for misrepresentation or bad-faith claims on the infringement of any Content found on and/or through the Service on your copyright.
DMCA Notice and Procedure for Copyright Infringement Claims
You may submit a notification pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by providing our Copyright Agent with the following information in writing (see 17 U.S.C 512(c)(3) for further detail):
▪ an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright's interest;
▪ a description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed, including the URL (i.e., web page address) of the location where the copyrighted work exists or a copy of the copyrighted work;
▪ identification of the URL or other specific location on the Service where the material that you claim is infringing is located;
▪ your address, telephone number, and email address;
▪ a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
▪ a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf.
You can contact our Copyright Agent via email at email@example.com
The Service and its original content (excluding Content provided by users), features and functionality are and will remain the exclusive property of WEB WED, INC and its licensors. The Service is protected by copyright, trademark, and other laws of both the United States and foreign countries. Our trademarks and trade dress may not be used in connection with any product or service without the prior written consent of WEB WED, INC. By using the service all parties agree to all terms and conditions including this ncnd clause. Failure to adhere may result in legal action domestically or internationally. Non-Circumvention:All clients agrees not to directly or indirectly contact,indirectly contact, deal with, establish an business realted or in the same field as this business internationally or domestic, transact, or otherwise be involved with any coporation, partnerships, proprietorships, trusts, or other entities introduced by parties.Users-Guests-Witness and Viewers agree not to start any business similar or offer any services related or like webwed and any other affliated entities. Users agree not to circumvent, avoid, bypass webwed or any entities affliated. It is also understood and aforemtioned that users , guests, or viewers can not post or profit from sharing the video which belongs to webwed on any social media platforms, video streaming platforms, websites etc without written consent international or domestic.This agreement shall be valid from the following term of ten years from the date of using this service, registering, and agree to terms and conditions. Please note by using the services you automatically agree to all terms and conditions.
Links To Other Web Sites
Our Service may contain links to third party web sites or services that are not owned or controlled by WEB WED, INC.
WEB WED, INC has no control over, and assumes no responsibility for the content, privacy policies, or practices of any third party web sites or services. We do not warrant the offerings of any of these entities/individuals or their websites.
You acknowledge and agree that WEB WED, INC shall not be responsible or liable, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with use of or reliance on any such content, goods or services available on or through any such third party web sites or services.
We strongly advise you to read the terms and conditions and privacy policies of any third party web sites or services that you visit.
We may terminate or suspend your account and bar access to the Service immediately, without prior notice or liability, under our sole discretion, for any reason whatsoever and without limitation, including but not limited to a breach of the Terms.
If you wish to terminate your account, you may simply discontinue using the Service.
All provisions of the Terms which by their nature should survive termination shall survive termination, including, without limitation, ownership provisions, warranty disclaimers, indemnity and limitations of liability.
You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless WEB WED, INC and its licensee and licensors, and their employees, contractors, agents, officers and directors, from and against any and all claims, damages, obligations, losses, liabilities, costs or debt, and expenses (including but not limited to attorney's fees), resulting from or arising out of a) your use and access of the Service, by you or any person using your account and password; b) a breach of these Terms, or c) Content posted on the Service.
All claims and disputes arising under or relating to this Agreement are to be settled by binding arbitration in the state of Nevada in which parties agree to arbitrate or another location mutually agreeable to the parties. The arbitration shall be conducted on a confidential basis pursuant to the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Any decision or award as a result of any such arbitration proceeding shall be in writing and shall provide an explanation for all conclusions of law and fact and shall include the assessment of costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees. Any such arbitration shall be conducted by an arbitrator experienced in wedding/legal tech industry or legal experience required for arbitrator and shall include a written record of the arbitration hearing. The parties reserve the right to object to any individual who shall be employed by or affiliated with a competing organization or entity. An award of arbitration may be confirmed in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Limitation Of Liability
In no event shall WEB WED, INC nor its directors, employees, partners, agents, suppliers, or affiliates, be liable for any indirect, incidental, special, consequential or punitive damages, including without limitation, loss of profits, data, use, goodwill, or other intangible losses, resulting from (i) your access to or use of or inability to access or use the Service; (ii) any conduct or content of any third party on the Service; (iii) any content obtained from the Service; and (iv) unauthorized access, use or alteration of your transmissions or content, whether based on warranty, contract, tort (including negligence) or any other legal theory, whether or not we have been informed of the possibility of such damage, and even if a remedy set forth herein is found to have failed of its essential purpose.
Your use of the Service is at your sole risk. We do not guarantee that all states will recognize your marriage as being legal. The Service is provided on an "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" basis. It is your responsibility to provide accurate information and be in the legal jurisdiction physically require by the state that your marriage license is issued at the time that the ceremony is performed. WebWed, Inc stream services is for entertainment purposes only. The Service is provided without warranties of any kind, whether express or implied, including, but not limited to, implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement or course of performance.
WEB WED, INC its subsidiaries, affiliates, and its licensors do not warrant that a) the Service will function uninterrupted, secure or available at any particular time or location; b) any errors or defects will be corrected; c) the Service is free of viruses or other harmful components; or d) the results of using the Service will meet your requirements.
Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of certain warranties or the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, so the limitations above may not apply to you.
These Terms shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of Nevada, United States, without regard to its conflict of law provisions.
Our failure to enforce any right or provision of these Terms will not be considered a waiver of those rights. If any provision of these Terms is held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court, the remaining provisions of these Terms will remain in effect. These Terms constitute the entire agreement between us regarding our Service, and supersede and replace any prior agreements we might have had between us regarding the Service.
We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to modify or replace these Terms at any time. If a revision is material we will provide at least 30 days notice prior to any new terms taking effect. What constitutes a material change will be determined at our sole discretion.
By continuing to access or use our Service after any revisions become effective, you agree to be bound by the revised terms. If you do not agree to the new terms, you are no longer authorized to use the Service.
If you have any questions about these Terms, please contact us.
1. The Information WebWed Collects:
Information You Provide: You may provide to WebWed what is generally called "personally identifiable" information (such as your name, email address, credit card number, postal mailing address, and telephone numbers) if you use certain services or products from the WebWed Service, enter contests or sweepstakes, or otherwise use the features and functionality of the WebWed Service.
“Automatically Collected“ Information: When you access the WebWed Service (including through your computer or your mobile device) or open one of our HTML emails, we may automatically record certain information from your system by using different types of tracking technology. This “automatically collected“ information may include Internet Protocol address ("IP Address"), a unique user ID, version of software installed, system type, the content and pages that you access on the WebWed Service, and the dates and times that you visit the WebWed Service.
“Cookies“ Information: When you access the WebWed Service, we may send one or more cookies . small text files containing a string of alphanumeric characters . to your computer. WebWed may use both session cookies and persistent cookies. A session cookie disappears after you close your browser. A persistent cookie remains after you close your browser and may be used by your browser on subsequent visits to the WebWed Service. Persistent cookies can be removed. Please review your web browser "Help" file to learn the best way to modify your cookie settings.
“Pixel Tags“ or “Clear Gifs“ A pixel tag, also known as a clear GIF or web beacon, is an invisible tag placed on certain pages of our WebWed Service but not on your computer. When you access these pages, pixel tags generate a generic notice of that visit. They usually work in conjunction with cookies, registering when a particular computer visits a particular page. If you turn off cookies the pixel tag will simply detect an anonymous website visit.
Your User ID. Your User ID is displayed throughout the WebWed Service and is therefore available to the public. Other people can see your feedback, ratings and associated comments, etc. Therefore, if you associate your actual name with your User ID, the people to whom you have revealed your name will be able to personally identify your activities on the WebWed Service.
2. The Way WebWed Uses Information:
WebWed uses the information that you provide or that we collect to operate, maintain, enhance, and provide all of the features and services found on the WebWed Service as well as to track user-generated content and Users to the extent necessary to comply as a service provider with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable laws.
We may use your email address or mobile number, without further consent, for administrative communications such as notifying you of major WebWed Service updates, for customer service purposes, and to send privacy or security related notices.
WebWed uses all of the information that we collect to understand the usage trends and preferences of our Users, to improve the way the WebWed Service works and looks, to create new features and functionality.
WebWed may use .Automatically Collected. information and .Cookies. information to: (a) remember your information so that you will not have to re-enter it during your visit or the next time you access the WebWed Service; (b) provide customized third-party advertisements, content and information; (c) monitor and report on the effectiveness of third-party marketing campaigns; (d) monitor and report aggregate usage metrics such as total number of visitors and pages accessed; and (e) track your entries, submissions, and status in any promotions or other activities.
3. When WebWed Discloses Information:
WebWed does not share your personally identifiable information with other organizations for their marketing or promotional uses without your prior express consent. Please be aware, however, that any personally identifiable information that you voluntarily choose to display on any publicly available portion of the WebWed Service . such as when you publish your public profile information . becomes publicly available and may be collected and used by others without restriction.
WebWed may disclose Automatically Collected and other aggregate non-personally-identifiable information (such as anonymous User usage data, referring / exit pages and URLs, platform types, number of clicks, etc.) with interested third parties to assist those parties in understanding the usage and demographic patterns for certain content, services, advertisements, promotions, or other functionality on the WebWed Service.
WebWed may disclose User information if required to do so by law or in the good-faith belief that such action is necessary to comply with state and federal laws (such as U.S. copyright or trademark law) or respond to a court order, judicial or other government subpoena, or warrant in the manner required by the requesting entity.
4. Your Choices and Access to your Personal Information
You may, of course, decline to share your personally-identifiable information with WebWed, in which case WebWed will not be able to provide to you some of the features and functionality found on the WebWed Service. You may view, update, correct, or delete your user information and preferences by contacting firstname.lastname@example.org.
To protect your privacy and security, we take reasonable steps to verify your identity before granting you account access or making corrections to your information. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE SECRECY OF YOUR UNIQUE PASSWORD AND ACCOUNT INFORMATION AT ALL TIMES.
WebWed does not provide your personally identifiable information to these third-party ad servers or ad networks without your consent. However, please note that if an advertiser asks WebWed to show an advertisement to a certain audience or audience segment and you respond to that advertisement, the advertiser or ad-server may conclude that you fit the description of the audience that they were trying to reach.
6. Our Commitment to Data Security:
WebWed uses commercially reasonable physical, managerial, and technical safeguards to preserve the integrity and security of your personal information. We cannot, however, ensure or warrant the security of any information you transmit to WebWed, and you do so at your own risk. Once we receive your transmission of information, WebWed makes commercially reasonable efforts to ensure the security of our systems. However, please note that this is not a guarantee that such information may not be accessed, disclosed, altered, or destroyed by breach of any of our physical, technical, or managerial safeguards.
If WebWed learns of a security systems breach, then we may attempt to notify you electronically so that you can take appropriate protective steps. WebWed may post a notice on the WebWed Service if a security breach occurs. Depending on where you live, you may have a legal right to receive notice of a security breach in writing. To receive a free written notice of a security breach you should notify us at email@example.com.
7. Our Commitment to Children's Privacy:
IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, THEN PLEASE DO NOT USE OR ACCESS THE LIVESTREAM SERVICE AT ANY TIME OR IN ANY MANNER.
Protecting the privacy of young children is especially important. For that reason, WebWed does not knowingly collect or maintain personally identifiable information from persons under 18 years-of-age. If WebWed learns that personally-identifiable information of persons less than 18-years-of-age has been collected on or through the Service, then will take WebWed e appropriate steps to delete this information.
If you are the parent or legal guardian of a child under 18 who has become a WebWed Service member, then please contact WebWed at firstname.lastname@example.org to have that child's account terminated and information deleted.
8. International Visitors:
For Users visiting the Service fro WebWed m the European Union or other non-U.S. territories, please note that any data you enter into the WebWed Servic e will be transferred outside the European Union or such other non-U.S. territory for use by WebWed and its affiliates for any of the purposes described herein. In addition, because operates glob WebWed ally, we may make information we gather available to worldwide business units and affiliates. By providing any data on the WebWed Service, you hereby expressly consent to such transfers of your data to the United States or other countries.
9. In the Event of Merger or Sale:
In the event that is acquire WebWed d by or merged with a third-party entity, we reserve the right, in any of these circumstances, to transfer or assign the information that we have collected from Users as part of that merger, acquisition, sale, or other change of control.
10. Third Parties
Except as otherwise expressly provided otherwise, this document addresses only the use and disclosure of information we collect from you or that you disclose to us. If you disclose your information to others besides , whether they are users of the Service or WebWed on other sites or services, different rules may apply to t WebWed heir use or disclosure of the information you disclose to them WebWed. does not control the privacy policies of third parties, and you are subject to the privacy policies of those third parties where applicable. We encourage you to ask questions before you disclose your personal information to others.
12. WebWed Contact Information: