Sign-In Wrap Agreement: When a Sign-Up Screen Binds a Customer to Your Terms

The table lists the six published opinions with the wording of the notice and the label on the button, as each opinion describes them. Read across a row and the pattern is visible: the enforced screens name the button, or an action the button plainly performs.

All six concern motions to compel arbitration, and all apply the same two-part test. We read each opinion in the court's own PDF.

That definition comes from Keebaugh v. Warner Bros. Entertainment and is repeated in Chabolla v. ClassPass. The customer is not asked to tick a box that means only I agree. Agreement is attached to a button that has another job, such as creating the account or placing the order.

The appeal for a business is plain. There is one less step in the sign-up flow. The cost is that the company must later persuade a court that the customer saw the notice and understood what the button meant.

Courts place the pattern between clickwrap, which they routinely enforce, and browsewrap, which they do not. In Oberstein v. Live Nation Entertainment the Ninth Circuit called it a hybrid form that is not without its risks and invites second-guessing.

Berman v. Freedom Financial Network set out the test in 2022. It applies when the company cannot show the customer actually knew of the terms, which is the usual case. The company is then relying on inquiry notice: the idea that a reasonably prudent person would have noticed.

Godun v. JustAnswer describes the first step as having two aspects that are considered together. One is the visual design of the page. The other is the context of the transaction. A reasonable person is expected to be more alert to contract terms when the transaction implies a continuing relationship.

The burden is on the company. Chabolla repeats that the party seeking to compel arbitration must prove an agreement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Berman is the reference for what fails. Two lines of tiny gray type sat between a large zip-code box and a large green continue button. The links were underlined in the same gray, without the blue that usually marks a link. The court said the larger text around the notice drew attention everywhere else.

Oberstein and Keebaugh are the references for what passes. In Oberstein the terms were marked in bright blue and the notices sat directly above or below the action button at each of three stages. In Keebaugh the court described a sign-in screen that lacked clutter and used the customary design elements that signal a hyperlink.

Godun shows how fine the line can be. One plaintiff's payment page had gray-on-gray text placed away from the start my trial button, and failed. A later version fixed the color. The court still found it insufficient because the notice was small and was not directly above or below the button.

The memorandum of 4 November 2026 on LendingTree and QuoteWizard lead forms applies the same factors. The panel pointed to tiny type, cluttered pages, larger text and a bright green button drawing the eye, and a terms link placed well below the confirmation button. That disposition is unpublished and is not precedent.

• Type no smaller or fainter than the text around it
• Links in a contrasting color, with the usual look of a link
• Notice directly above or below the action button
• No larger headings, offers or buttons pulling attention away
• The same result on the mobile layout

Berman said a click can show assent only if the customer is explicitly advised that the act of clicking will constitute assent. The court offered a fix in its own words: a line stating that by clicking the continue button, you agree to the terms and conditions.

Chabolla applied this strictly. On the second ClassPass screen the notice said by signing up you agree, and the button said continue. On the third the notice read I agree to the terms of use, and the button said redeem now. The majority held that neither screen allowed an unambiguous manifestation of assent.

Godun then stated the rule in general terms. Even strongly implicit advisement is not enough. The page must explain that certain actions will be understood as assent, and it must identify what those actions are. Godun gives the usual form as an explanatory clause at the start of the notice, such as by clicking the named button, you agree.

The memorandum of 5 November 2026 in Morrison v. Yippee Entertainment shows the same point from another angle. The notice said the customer agreed by clicking below. Six clickable items sat below it, including the start subscription button and several policy links. The panel held that the page did not say which click meant assent.

The idea comes from the California Court of Appeal's 2021 decision in Sellers v. JustAnswer, which the Ninth Circuit discusses in Keebaugh, Chabolla and Godun. Someone who signs up for an account contemplates a continuing relationship and would expect it to have terms.

In Keebaugh the district court had treated this factor as decisive against the company. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that a court must look at both the context of the transaction and the placement of the notice, and that the mobile game's sign-in screen satisfied both.

In Chabolla the factor cut the other way. The majority noted that customers were told there were no commitments and that they could cancel anytime, that no username or password was created, and that the purchase was framed as redeeming an offer for a month of credits. It said the transaction could easily be seen as a one-time purchase.

The practical reading for a subscription seller is uncomfortable. Marketing that plays down commitment can make it harder to argue later that the customer expected contract terms.

Three of the Godun plaintiffs saw a payment page with a box that was already checked, so they only had to click connect now. The court noted that it was unclear whether the box could be unchecked at all, and held that the notice on those pages did not explicitly say what action would constitute assent.

ClassPass argued that its three screens should be read together. The majority looked at each screen, found a defect in each, and declined to treat the sum as sufficient. Judge Bybee dissented, saying the customer received three conspicuous notices and assented three times.

The dissent matters for planning. Judge Bybee wrote that the decision leaves websites guessing whether any nuance in a sign-in wrap will be held against them, and said it sows great uncertainty. In Godun, Judge R. Nelson wrote the opinion and also a separate concurrence saying the court's precedent had created confusion. Two judges of the court are on record that this area is hard to predict.

The table pairs each point the courts examined with a way to check it on a live screen. It is a review aid built from the opinions above. It cannot tell you whether a court would enforce a particular screen, and the opinions are from one circuit applying mostly California law.

Oberstein's advice remains the shortest summary. To ensure that an online agreement passes muster, the court said, clickwrap is the safest choice.