¶2I concur in the result. The trial court, after conducting a hearing, found that the parties agreed to a venue provision.1 We defer to the trial court’s factual determinations, and as such I concur with the result that Appellant, in this case, assented to the website terms. Had the trial court found that Appellant did not assent to the terms, whether it had been a browsewrap or clickwrap, I: would' have deferred to that determination as well.
¶3I write this separate opinion to note that the same contract principles hold on the internet. When the consumer is presented with a contract of adhesion containing lengthy provisions and hidden terms, I believe courts should consider whether the process of assent or terms of the contract are unconscionable.2 Here, the dispute involves a forum-selection clause assented to by Appellant’s use of a free service — terms that are not so onerous as to rise to the level of unconscionability; however, I do not want our opinion to indicate that consumers assent to any buried term that a website may provide simply by using the website or clicking “I agree.”
¶4. While we were not provided with a transcript of the hearing and the judgment is devoid of factual findings, inherent in the judgment is the determination that Appellant had at least constructive notice of ServiceM-agic’s terms.
