“GET MORE INFO” IS NOT AN AGREEMENT: Northern District of California Rejects Arbitration Based On Ambiguous Website Design

Hi TCPAWorld!

While businesses increasingly rely on online agreements to bind users to arbitration provisions, a recent decision out of the Northern District of California serves as another reminder that even well-designed sign-in wrap agreements may still fail if they do not explicitly communicate that a user’s clicking a button constitutes an agreement to the Terms and Conditions.

In Caroline Wong v. LaserAway, LLC, 26-cv-00529-RS (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2026), U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg denied a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the website’s reasonably conspicuous notice of its Terms and Conditions failed to establish a user’s unambiguous manifestation of assent.

When visiting LaserAway’s website, the plaintiff here provided her telephone number whilst filling out a questionnaire for recommended services. After such, the plaintiff alleged LaserAway violated the TCPA after she continued to receive text marketing messages even after she requested they stop. However, LaserAway sought to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision contained in the hyperlink to its Terms and Conditions. Specifically, LaserAway argued that the plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any dispute when she clicked the button labeled “GET MORE INFO” after submitting information through the company’s website.

In its analysis, the court first outlined a spectrum of internet contracts, with one end of the spectrum being clickwrap agreements where users are presented with “specified contractual terms on a pop-up screen” and must then click a box “explicitly stating ‘I agree’” before proceeding. On the other end of the spectrum, the court considered browsewrap agreements where users are presented with terms only through a hyperlink and “supposedly manifests assent to those terms” by mere continued use of the website. Nestled in the middle of this spectrum, the court considered sign-in wrap agreements where a user accepts the website’s Terms and Conditions by making some affirmative act, such as clicking a button, after being advised that such affirmative act is agreeing to the Terms and Conditions.

In this case, the court found LaserAway’s form of internet contract to be classified as a sign-in wrap agreement. Citing Kroskey v. Elevate Labs, LLC, 2025 WL 1507091, (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2025), the court held that sign-in wrap agreements are enforceable contracts if “(1) the website provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to which the consumer will be bound; and (2) the consumer takes some action, such as clicking a button or checking a box, that unambiguously manifests his or her assent to those terms.”

The court agreed that LaserAway’s website satisfied the first requirement as it was relatively uncluttered, and the hyperlink to the Terms and Conditions was displayed in a readable font. However, the court did not find the website and user interaction to rise to the level unambiguous manifestation of assent as necessary in the second requirement.

While LaserAway cited recent decisions compelling arbitration, the court disagreed. The court held that the cited cases paired affirmative actions with clear contractual language which eliminated any ambiguity regarding assent while LaserAway’s website lacked this critical connection between the button and the legal consequences of clicking it.

This decision reinforces several practical considerations for internet contracts:

• Conspicuous hyperlinks alone are insufficient to establish a contract.
• Buttons should expressly communicate that clicking constitutes agreement to the Terms and Conditions.
• Language such as “GET MORE INFO” or similar phrases are a mere invitation to enter a contract.

Another day in TCPAWorld, folks! Check back for continued analysis of the latest TCPA cases and developments.