Judge Ryan Nelson Writes Majority Opinion And Concurring Opinion.

        In Godun v. JustAnswer LLC, No. 24-2095 (9th Cir. 4/15/24) (R. Nelson, Paez, Ikuta), plaintiffs alleged that JustAnswer deceptively enrolled them in costly recurring subscriptions after paying $1–$5 for answers online. JustAnswer moved to compel arbitration under Terms of Service containing an arbitration clause, arguing plaintiffs were on inquiry notice and assented via “sign-in wrap” agreements. Applying California law, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of arbitration, finding no mutual assent. Some payment pages failed the Berman step-one “reasonably conspicuous notice” requirement; others failed step-two because advisals lacked explicit language (e.g., “By clicking…” clauses) linking user action to contractual assent. Neither subsequent texts, emails, nor disclaimers cured the defect. No plaintiff agreed to arbitrate.

        Judge Nelson authored the majority to apply binding precedent but wrote separately to signal disagreement with aspects of that precedent—particularly Berman’s explicit advisement rule and certain visual conspicuousness interpretations—urging reconsideration in future cases.