Commercial License Terms May Govern Even Without Contracting Officer Knowledge
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.30.18
On June 27, 2018, in Appeal of CiyaSoft Corporation, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held that the government breached the terms of a commercial software license agreement even though the contracting officer (CO) had not even seen that license. Here CiyaSoft appealed a claim asserting that the Army had breached the terms of its license by using more copies of the software than were permitted. The Army had denied the claim, in part, because the writing between the parties contained no terms specifying how the government would secure and protect the software. However, CiyaSoft had included license terms limiting the software’s use (i) inside the box containing the CDs with the software, (ii) on a piece of paper inside the software’s shrinkwrap, and (iii) in clickwrap that was displayed during the software’s installation process. On appeal, the Board found that although the writing between the parties did not include all of the relevant license terms and the CO never saw or discussed those license terms with CiyaSoft, the CO had a duty to inquire about those license terms and the failure to do so imputed knowledge of the licensing terms on the Army. Highlighting the longstanding policy that the government should accept commercial computer license terms that are customarily provided to other purchasers, the Board held that “the government can be bound by the terms of a commercial software license it has neither negotiated nor seen prior to the receipt of the software, so long as the terms are consistent with those customarily provided by the vendor to other purchasers and do not otherwise violate federal law.”
After finding that the Army could be subject to CiyaSoft’s commercial license terms, the Board then determined that the software was “commercial computer software” under FAR 2.101 because (1) it was developed without government funds, (2) it had been sold to at least one non-governmental entity, and (3) the modifications to the software prior to delivery to the Army did not affect the software’s core purpose.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
