Good discussion on the Tech and Marketing Law Blog here of Rodman v. Safeway Inc., 2014 WL 6984703 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014), where the trial court upheld plaintiffs' contention that Safeway promised to charge in-store prices for products ordered online (even though, in actuality, that is not what it was actually charging) and refused to allow Safeway to change the online contract after suit was brought, thus cutting off damages as of the date of the change without notice to customers. Safeway relied on language in the contract purporting to allow unilateral changes to contract terms, but the Court refused to allow that "because consumers cannot assent to terms that do not yet exist" and "customers’ assent to the revised Terms cannot be inferred from their continued use of safeway.com when they were never given notice that the Special Terms had been altered."
