CONFLICT OF LAWS IN CROSS-BORDER CLICKWRAP AGREEMENTS: AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

With the advancement digital commerce, clickwrap agreements has become the dominant mode of contractual consent across borders. This raises critical questions at the intersection of contract law, jurisdictional authority and consumer protection. The enforceability of cross-border clickwrap contracts in India reveals a structural tension between party autonomy and domestic legislation. Prior research has examined validity or conflict of laws in clickwrap agreements in isolation. This leaves a gap in the integrated analysis of how Indian jurisprudence navigates the three-dimensional conflict of jurisdiction, choice of law, and enforcement. This paper addresses that gap by examining the enforceability and regulatory limits of cross-border clickwrap agreements under Indian law. The study draws upon statutory frameworks alongside landmark judicial precedents. Comparative reference is also made to the international conventions on notice and consent. The analysis reveals that while Indian law formally recognises party autonomy through doctrines such as Lex Loci Voluntatis and uphold exclusive jurisdictional clauses. The paper argues that longstanding non-ratification by India of the Hague Convention reflects a deliberate assertion of judicial sovereignty rather than administrative inertia, preserving the discretion of Indian courts to protect structurally weaker parties in digital contracts of adhesion. The UNCITRAL addresses cross-border insolvency frameworks. The broader implication calls for a change from treating acceptance as genuine consent to recognising it as a regulated interaction governed by mandatory public interest norms. Thereby, the digital contracts should be reframed as site for consumer rights rather than mere commercial autonomy.