The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on November 5, 2026, that Yippee Entertainment, Inc. cannot compel arbitration in a case involving Brittany Morrison. The court's decision affects how companies enforce arbitration agreements in online transactions, particularly regarding user consent.

Brittany Morrison, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Yippee Entertainment, claiming that the company failed to properly inform users about the arbitration agreement associated with its services. The court's ruling is significant because it highlights the importance of clear communication in online agreements, especially in an era where digital contracts are increasingly common.

The case began when Morrison alleged that Yippee's sign-in wrap did not adequately inform users that clicking a button would signify their agreement to arbitration. Yippee sought to compel arbitration, arguing that Morrison had consented to the terms by using its service. The district court, however, denied this motion, leading Yippee to appeal the decision.

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on whether Morrison had provided clear assent to the arbitration agreement. The court found that Yippee's sign-in wrap failed to establish an unambiguous manifestation of assent. The judges emphasized that for an agreement to be valid, users must be explicitly informed that their actions, such as clicking a button, would indicate their acceptance of the terms.

The court stated, "We agree with the district court that Yippee failed to show that an agreement to arbitrate was formed because Yippee’s 'sign-in wrap' did not lead to 'an unambiguous manifestation of assent.'" This ruling underscores the necessity for companies to provide clear and direct instructions regarding user agreements.

The judges also noted that the advisal on Yippee's webpage did not clearly indicate which action would constitute assent to the arbitration agreement. The court pointed out that the sign-in wrap included multiple clickable items, making it unclear which action users needed to take to agree to the terms. The judges explained that the lack of explicit guidance meant that Morrison did not adequately consent to the arbitration.

As a result, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny Yippee's motion to compel arbitration. The court did not address other arguments presented by the district court since the ruling on assent was sufficient to uphold the decision.

This ruling has significant implications for how online businesses draft and present their terms and conditions. Companies must ensure that their agreements are clear and that users understand what actions will indicate their consent. This decision may serve as a precedent for future cases involving online agreements and arbitration clauses.

Moving forward, businesses that rely on online contracts should take note of the court's emphasis on clarity and explicitness in user agreements. Failure to do so could result in similar legal challenges, potentially undermining their ability to enforce arbitration clauses.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Yippee Entertainment plans to appeal the decision or if there are related cases pending. However, the ruling sets a clear standard for how companies should approach user consent in digital agreements.