At least in theory, mutual assent remains a cornerstone of contract law and thus of arbitration. The tricky part has become understanding what counts as mutual assent in a world where overwhelming empirical evidence, not to mention our own lived experience, demonstrates that no one reads standardized terms and conditions, including arbitration provisions buried in
Almost a year ago, the Second Circuit praised the clean, readable design of Uber’s app. Because the reference to Uber’s terms of service was not cluttered and hyperlinked to the actual terms, the Second Circuit held Uber could enforce its arbitration agreement and the class action waiver within it. But, just last week, the First
Last Thursday, the Second Circuit found that the arbitration agreement in Uber’s Terms of Service was conspicuous enough to be binding and enforceable. As a result, the claims of a putative class of consumers will be dismissed unless they can show that Uber waived its right to arbitrate their claims. Meyer v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
In a case between an on-line customer and Barnes & Noble, the Ninth Circuit recently refused to enforce the arbitration agreement found in the website’s “Terms of Use.” Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., __ F.3d__, 2014 WL 4056549 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2014). The decision further calls into question the validity of “browsewrap”
In a fascinating decision, the Second Circuit has ruled that an internet merchant cannot compel arbitration with a consumer, when it only emailed the consumer the arbitration agreement after the consumer agreed to the purchase, without any requirement that the consumer affirmatively assent to the term.
In Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp., __ F.3d __,