In Tyler Baker, et al. v. Yahoo Inc. and Yahoo AD Tech LLC, No. 25CV2797 (DLC), 2026 WL 2516944 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2026), the Court granted Yahoo’s motion to compel arbitration for the five plaintiffs who have active Yahoo accounts and motion to stay pending arbitration.
Six individuals bring a class action against Yahoo, alleging violation of privacy laws by collecting information about them without their consent after they signed up for websites that utilize Yahoo’s targeted ConnectID advertising technology. After learning that five of the plaintiffs have active email accounts with Yahoo and signed its Terms of Services that included an arbitration clause, Yahoo moved to compel arbitration. The sixth plaintiff’s account was deactivated for inactivity.
Yahoo first added an arbitration clause to its Terms of Service in 2018. Users who created a Yahoo account after the 2018 Terms went into effect were required to accept the Terms as part of the account creation process. For users who created a Yahoo account before 2018 Terms were introduced, Yahoo designed a pop-up notification process to provide notice and seek acceptance of the 2018 Terms. Yahoo updated the arbitration clause language thereafter twice, in March and May of 2025 with another pop-up notice for the May 2025 Terms. Emails with the March 2025 updated Terms were sent to all Yahoo users stating that “by continuing to use Yahoo services, users accepted and agreed to these updated Terms.” All five plaintiffs accepted each of Yahoo’s Terms of Service including the 2018, March 2025 and May 2025 Terms.
Plaintiffs who created account after the 2018 Terms argued that clicking the “Continue” button was not an indication of assent because it was not a “checkbox or comparable mechanism”. The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument and stated that users facing a virtually identical sign-up screen were “on inquiry notice of the arbitration provision by virtue of the hyperlink to the Terms of Service” and “manifested their assent to the agreement by clicking ‘Register.’” Because Terms of Service and Privacy Policy included a single hyperlink to those Terms and was situated on an uncluttered screen, it provided users with “reasonably conspicuous notice” of such Terms. The Court then found, given the “objectivity reasonable notice of the terms,” a user’s clicking of the “Register” button constituted an “unambiguous” assent to the Terms of Service and, thus, to arbitration.
Those who created an account before the 2018 Terms were introduced, assented to the arbitration clause twice, first when they clicked, “I Accept” or “Agree” at the bottom of the pop-up notification, and second, when they continue using Yahoo account after receiving an email with the new Terms.
As to arbitrability, the court looked at the arbitration clause which first states that the parties agree to “resolve” issues regarding “whether a claim is subject to arbitration” “only by arbitration”, and second, it states that “any and all disputes, controversies, or claims that in any way arise out of or relate to these Terms” are subject to arbitration. Therefore, the Court found that each of the five plaintiffs entered into an agreement to arbitrate and delegate all issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
In this case, the court underscores the enforceability of arbitration agreements included within online Terms of Service. By confirming that plaintiffs accepted and agreed to the arbitration clause upon creating their accounts and through assenting updated Terms, the Court reinforced the notion that users are bound by the contractual agreements they enter into, even if such agreements are presented through digital interfaces. This case highlights the importance of users understanding the implications of their consent in digital environments, particularly regarding privacy rights and dispute resolution mechanisms.