Why Arbitration Clauses Fail Online: The Sign-Up Screens Courts Refused to Enforce

The table lists the rulings we draw on. We know them through law-firm and legal-press summaries, and through the two Ninth Circuit memoranda linked below. We have not read the full opinions, so check a ruling with counsel before relying on it.

The two November 2026 dispositions are memoranda. They are not precedential, which means they show how the court is applying the standard without binding later panels.

Notice came first. In Chabolla the Ninth Circuit held the sign-in wrap unenforceable for lack of reasonably conspicuous notice. Fenwick's summary says the decision signals tougher standards for online agreements.

The action came second. In Wong v. LaserAway the button read 'GET MORE INFO'. The court held that clicking it did not manifest assent to terms. A person asking for information has not said yes to a contract.

Proof came third. In the Red Robin case, as TCPAWorld reports it, people could complete sign-up without acknowledging the text-messaging terms. The link the company attested to also did not contain the arbitration clause. The company had terms with a clause. It could not connect them to what this customer saw.

The labels are shorthand that courts and lawyers use. The descriptions here follow how the terms are used in the rulings above. They are a guide to the pattern and do not predict a result in any one case.

A clickwrap asks for a distinct action that means agreement, such as ticking a box beside a statement of acceptance. In the Honey rulings, the two plaintiffs who went through a clickwrap flow were sent to arbitration.

A sign-in wrap places a notice near a button that does something else, such as creating an account. A browsewrap posts terms by link and asks for no acknowledgment. Both leave the company to argue that the person must have noticed.

The Honey rulings show both outcomes inside one case. The clause was the same. The flow each plaintiff went through was different, and so was the result.

Proskauer reports a 2026 California Court of Appeal decision, Wilkins v. Cruise, under a headline saying an employee was bound by a customer arbitration agreement. One commentator in the material we reviewed also notes that the Second Circuit takes a more flexible approach than the Ninth.

So the rulings do not mean online terms are unenforceable. They mean the company carries the burden of showing notice and assent, and some flows cannot carry it.

This checklist is drawn from what the courts found missing in the rulings above. It is a design review list. Whether a particular screen would be enforced is a question for counsel.

Give lead forms and text-message opt-in forms the same attention as account sign-up. Several of the 2026 losses came from those forms.

• The notice that terms apply sits next to the button, in readable type and contrast
• The button or checkbox wording states agreement, in words such as I agree
• The checkbox is not ticked in advance
• A person cannot finish sign-up without taking the agreement action
• The link opens the terms that contain the arbitration clause
• Each set of terms that applies is acknowledged, including text-messaging terms
• The same checks are run on the mobile layout

A motion to compel arbitration is decided on evidence. Someone at the company has to attest to what the customer saw, often years after the page was redesigned.

The Red Robin ruling shows the risk. The link the company attested to lacked the clause. A commentary on another case, White v. PayPal, carries a title warning that poor record keeping can cause the formation of online terms to fail in court. We know that piece by its title only, because the page did not load.

The list below is what the rulings imply a company should be able to produce. Collect it when the customer signs up. It cannot be recreated afterward.

• An image or capture of the sign-up screen as it was displayed, for each version
• The dates each screen version was live
• The full text of each version of the terms, with its effective dates
• For each customer: the action taken, the timestamp, and the account or device
• Which terms version that action accepted
• Any later re-acceptance when the terms changed