Without this presumption, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant saw the icon.  Whether retractable packaging is applicable or not has remained a recurring and controversial issue, even in court. Many studies have been done to find out if a customer automatically accepts the terms of a wrap discount contract for payment. Scholars and Reaearchers are settled in different tents on this theme. While some courts accept that a consumer recognizes the conditions in a narrowed packaging contract, since he pays for the product, accepts the product and even opens the package. Others felt that the consumer could not have accepted the terms because he was not aware of what the conditions impose until the retractable film was removed. Shrink-wrap Licenses: Debate Continues, Unicorn, D.A. (1997). Idea, 38, 383.
Shrink Wrap agreement has given rise to many debates and controversies, such as the incompilability of the terms of the agreement before the purchase of the product. One of the characteristics of a shrunken packaging is that a consumer or customer cannot read its contractual terms until the package has been accepted and paid for. When the retractable film opens, a customer can read it and, when it is opened, it means that all conditions are suitable for the customer. Shrinkwrap Licensing Contracts: New Light on an Unwelcome Problem, Hayes, D. L. (1992). Hastings Comm. & Ent. LJ, 15, 653. intellectual property and retractable film licenses, Lemley, M. A.
(1994). Cal S. L. Rev., 68, 1239. The Shrinkwrap Snafu: Untangling the Extra Element in Breach of Contract Claims Based on Shrinkwrap Licenses, Smith, N. (2003). BYU L. Rev., 1373. Contracts, Copyright, and Confusion-Revisiting the Enforceability of Shrinkwrap Licenses, Heath, S.A.
(2005). Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop., 5, 12. shrink-wrap licenses for mass-marketed software: opposable contracts or whistles in the dark, Stern, R. H. (1985). Rutgers Computer and Tech.