Prof. Eric Goldman on "sign-in wrap" decision from Judge Orrick
Last year, the Ninth Circuit issued a blockbuster TOS formation case, Chabolla v. Classpass . The court rejected Classpassβ TOS formation despite Classpass deploying multiple screens where Classpass seemingly got close to formation. The Chabolla case, combined with the Godun case issued shortly after it, upended decades of TOS formation law, suggesting a heightened scrutiny of TOS formation screens that virtually ensured that prevailing sign-in-wrap practices would fail.
This case is a different lawsuit against Classpass, this time over unredeemable Classpass credits. Despite the unmistakable message from the Ninth Circuit that TOS formation screens should be reviewed exactingly, Judge Orrick of the N.D. Cal. district seems to be living in the past. He surprisingly holds that Classpass successfully formed its TOS and sends the case to arbitration. Why did Classpass succeed here when it failed last year at the Ninth Circuit? (If you expect a logical and sensible answer to that question, you must be new to the blog).
The named plaintiff, Blackburn, navigated through three relevant TOS formation screens. The opinion never precisely identifies which one successfully formed the TOS. It seems like all three did?
(The TOS contained an arbitration clause that everyone agrees applies to this lawsuit if the TOS was properly formed).
Blackburn created her Classpass account in 2019 by navigating this screen and choosing the option to continue with her Facebook credentials (the 2019 Sign Up Screen):
A few days later, in the next screen, she acquired her subscription membership through Classpassβ refer-a-friend program (which entitled her to additional credits) (the 2019 Checkout Screen):