Ninth Circuit Blocks Arbitration Without Clear Consumer Consent in VPPA Case
The Ninth Circuit ruled arbitration unenforceable without explicit user consent in a VPPA class action.
Why it matters: This ruling clarifies that companies must obtain clear, informed user consent to arbitration clauses to enforce them. It impacts how consumer disputes are handled in California and guides other jurisdictions on online contract enforcement.
- On Nov 5, 2026, the Ninth Circuit rejected Yippee Entertainment’s attempt to compel arbitration in Morrison v. Yippee Entertainment, Inc.
- The court found Yippee’s website did not clearly inform users that clicking 'Start Subscription' meant agreeing to arbitration terms.
- The ruling requires explicit, conspicuous actions naming the arbitration agreement, dismissing vague references like “clicking below.”
- Experts warn this decision stresses the necessity of clear consent language, especially in digital consumer contracts.
On November 5, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Yippee Entertainment, Inc. in a class action alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), holding that arbitration could not be compelled without clear consumer consent.
The court determined that Yippee’s website did not adequately inform users that clicking the "Start Subscription" button constituted agreement to the Terms of Service, which included an arbitration clause. Without explicit and conspicuous notice, the consumers’ assent to arbitrate could not be presumed.
This matters because arbitration clauses in consumer contracts need explicit user agreement to be enforceable. The ruling emphasized that consent requires a clear, unmistakable act—here, simply clicking a button labeled "Start Subscription" was insufficient since the arbitration agreement was not clearly referenced.
Legal experts note that companies must ensure that the specific action signaling consent explicitly references the arbitration agreement. General statements like "clicking below" will no longer suffice, especially where multiple interactive elements exist on a webpage.
Jane Harper, a contract law specialist at Legal Insights Group, said, "This decision highlights the judiciary's insistence on transparency and clear consent in online agreements. Businesses can no longer rely on buried terms or vague references to compel arbitration." This perspective echoes industry calls for clearer communication to protect consumer rights.
The Morrison v. Yippee Entertainment, Inc. case (Docket 25-7161) sets a precedent underscoring the importance of explicit consent in digital consumer agreements, particularly in privacy-related class actions. For legal teams and corporations, this means re-evaluating how arbitration clauses are presented to avoid unenforceability risks.
By the numbers:
- November 5, 2026 — Date of the Ninth Circuit ruling
- Docket 25-7161 — Case number for Morrison v. Yippee Entertainment, Inc.
Yes, but: While this ruling is binding in the Ninth Circuit, other federal circuits have varying standards on what constitutes clear consent to arbitration, potentially leading to jurisdictional inconsistencies.
What's next: Legal teams should monitor whether other circuits adopt similar standards or if the Supreme Court addresses the enforceability of arbitration clauses with respect to explicit consent in upcoming cases.