Northern District of California Rejects Arbitration Over “Get More Info” Button

Case Snapshot

• Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
• Case: Caroline Wong v. LaserAway, LLC, No. 26-cv-00529-RS
• Decision Date: July 15, 2026
• Core Issue: Whether clicking a “GET MORE INFO” button created an enforceable agreement to arbitrate.
• Key Allegation: Plaintiff alleges LaserAway violated the TCPA by continuing to send marketing text messages after she revoked consent.
• Court Holding: The website provided reasonably conspicuous notice of its Terms and Conditions but failed to obtain the plaintiff’s unambiguous assent because the button did not expressly state that clicking constituted agreement.
• Outcome: Motion to compel arbitration denied.
• Notable Detail: The court distinguished recent cases enforcing sign-in wrap agreements because those websites expressly informed users that clicking the button meant they agreed to the terms.

A federal judge in California has refused to compel arbitration in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuit after finding that a website’s “GET MORE INFO” button did not clearly communicate that users were agreeing to the company’s Terms and Conditions.

The July 15 decision in Wong v. LaserAway, LLC adds to a growing body of case law defining when online agreements are enforceable and highlights that conspicuous hyperlinks alone are insufficient if users are not explicitly told that clicking a button constitutes acceptance of contractual terms.

Court Finds No Unambiguous Assent

Plaintiff Caroline Wong alleges LaserAway violated the TCPA by continuing to send marketing text messages after she requested they stop. According to the complaint, Wong entered her telephone number while completing an online questionnaire designed to recommend aesthetic services.

LaserAway moved to compel arbitration, arguing Wong agreed to its Terms and Conditions, including an arbitration clause, when she clicked a button labeled “GET MORE INFO.”

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg denied the motion, concluding LaserAway failed to establish that Wong objectively manifested assent to the arbitration agreement.

Court Examines Types of Online Contracts

The court reviewed the spectrum of online agreements recognized under California law.

Clickwrap agreements require users to affirmatively click an “I Agree” button after reviewing contractual terms and are generally the easiest to enforce.

Browsewrap agreements rely on users’ continued use of a website while making terms available only through a hyperlink. Courts have traditionally viewed these agreements with greater skepticism.

Between those models are sign-in wrap agreements, where users perform an action, such as creating an account or clicking a button, after being informed that doing so constitutes agreement to the website’s terms.

The court concluded LaserAway’s website fell into this middle category. Under existing Ninth Circuit and California precedent, sign-in wrap agreements are enforceable only if:

• The website provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms.
• The user’s action unambiguously manifests assent to those terms.

Hyperlink Was Clear, But the Button Was Not

Judge Seeborg indicated that the website’s clean design and readable hyperlink may have been sufficient to provide notice, but he did not conclusively decide that issue.

The webpage was uncluttered, and the Terms and Conditions hyperlink appeared in a readable font that a reasonably prudent internet user would likely notice.

The second requirement proved fatal.

Unlike other recent Northern District of California decisions enforcing arbitration agreements, LaserAway’s webpage never informed users that clicking “GET MORE INFO” meant they were agreeing to the Terms and Conditions.

Instead, the court found the button reasonably suggested only that additional product information would be provided.

Quoting prior Ninth Circuit authority, the court emphasized that a button click constitutes assent only when users are explicitly advised that the action carries contractual significance. A request to “get more info,” standing alone, does not provide that notice.

Distinguishing Recent Arbitration Decisions

LaserAway relied on several recent Northern District of California decisions compelling arbitration in online consumer disputes.

The court found those cases materially different because each paired the user’s affirmative action with explicit contractual language.

Examples included notices stating:

• “By placing this order, you agree to our Terms of Service.”
• “By clicking the Redeem now button, I agree to the Offer Terms and Terms of Use.”
• “By creating your account, you agree to Balance’s Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.”

Those websites directly informed consumers that clicking the button created a contractual agreement. LaserAway’s website did not.

Why It Matters for ARM Companies

Debt collectors, creditors, fintech companies, healthcare providers, and other businesses increasingly rely on online enrollment forms, payment portals, and account management websites that incorporate arbitration agreements.

This decision reinforces several practical drafting considerations:

• Hyperlinks alone are generally insufficient.
• Button labels should clearly indicate that clicking constitutes agreement to the Terms and Conditions.
• Language focused solely on obtaining information or continuing a transaction may not establish enforceable assent.
• Courts continue to closely scrutinize online contract formation, particularly when arbitration provisions are involved.

While the ruling comes from a federal district court and is not binding outside the case, it aligns with a continuing trend requiring websites to clearly communicate the legal effect of a user’s click before arbitration agreements will be enforced.