Show notes
In this episode, I read aloud Judge Chin’s majority opinion in Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017), a foundational online-assent case about whether Uber’s mobile “sign-in-wrap” created a binding arbitration agreement. The Second Circuit vacates a district-court denial of arbitration and remands on waiver, holding that the app’s registration screen gave “reasonably conspicuous” notice and that tapping “Register” unambiguously manifested assent to the linked Terms of Service. Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017).
Why this case matters
It sets a widely cited standard for mobile contract formation: the “reasonably prudent smartphone user,” notice via hyperlink, and spatial/temporal coupling of terms with the act of registration.
It anchors the taxonomy of online agreements (clickwrap, browsewrap, scrollwrap, sign-in-wrap) in Second Circuit doctrine and integrates Specht and Nicosia. See Specht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002); Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016).
It’s also a clean vehicle to teach FAA vs. state contract law: arbitration is enforced only if a contract exists under state law (here, California), reviewed de novo on undisputed facts.
For contrast, pair it with Sgouros v. TransUnion, 817 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2016) (design misled users) and Cullinane v. Uber Techs., Inc., 893 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2018) (Uber lost on a different screen design).
What to listen for (learning targets)
Procedural posture and standards of review. Identify where the case sits (appeal from denial of motions to compel arbitration), what is reviewed de novo, and what is reviewed for clear error. Be ready to explain why de novo applies here.
Governing law pathway. Track the move from the FAA policy favoring arbitration to the threshold state-law contract question: Was there a contract at all? Note the court’s reliance on Specht for assent principles.
Interface facts that mattered. Listen for the precise design features the court credits: uncluttered screen; dark text on white; blue, underlined hyperlinked “TERMS OF SERVICE & PRIVACY POLICY”; placement directly below “Register”; no scrolling needed. Ask yourself which of these are necessary vs. merely persuasive.
“Reasonably prudent smartphone user.” Catch how the court uses background facts about smartphone adoption and common web conventions to support constructive notice. Could similar reasoning cut the other way if conventions evolve?
Assent without an “I agree” button. The court treats tapping “Register” as assent when paired with clear notice. Contrast with designs where the same tap serves a different, misleading purpose (Sgouros).
Issue reserved on remand. The panel leaves waiver (litigation conduct) for the district court. Flag how and why waiver can be decided by a court rather than the arbitrator.
Comparative authority. Be prepared to compare Meyer with Nicosia (hyperlink too distant and cluttered context) and Cullinane (First Circuit finds Uber’s design inadequate). What concrete drafting/UX lessons emerge?
Learning prompts
If you were Uber’s product counsel in 2014, what one change would most fortify assent? If you represent riders, which single design change would most undermine assent? Ground answers in the record facts the court emphasizes.
Draft a one-sentence notice that’s more conspicuous than Uber’s but still realistic on a phone.
Apply Meyer’s framework to a modern OAuth/SSO “Sign in with X” flow. Does a federated-login button complicate notice and assent? Which screen owns the duty to warn?
Primary sources
Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017) (opinion).
Meyer v. Kalanick, 200 F. Supp. 3d 408 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (district court opinion cited by the panel).
Specht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002)
Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016).
Sgouros v. TransUnion Corp., 817 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2016)
Cullinane v. Uber Techs., Inc., 893 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2018)