possibly be insufficient with this you have the three signed up options and then immediately under it you have a simple statement by signing up i agree to the terms and circuit's decision in myer versus our means that the website there seems very i mean of course it's not binding on us but the website there seems very similar to the web site that air b n b used  and there was found the website was found to provide reasonable notice this morning can you distinguish the air b n b website from the super website yes just can't i think that if you take a look at because in your restoration page you got a kick you must click either google or facebook and you said you were concerned because you click on facebook then your side tracked well that would be the same in  sure about those particular facts but i know that the once the consumer in my ear is on the payment each state know that they're still working with no no i understand what you're saying there but one of your arguments here was that to get started you have to click on say for example facebook will lead strew and myers well you have to click on either google or faceb so you're saying that's a distraction so you don't click on next and my st you have to click on google or facebook or you or you do the sign and a loss on not sure trying to prohibiting arbitration of these claims and wondering can you point to any other federal statute that that specifically prohibits arbitration of claims under that statute or any case i was just i mean i i was unable to locate any any analogy its right where courts have actually read a federal statute or perhaps arbitration and so i just think there's such a strong presumption in favor of arbitrary and even you know in the title seven cases you know arbitration is permitted under title seven so that's why i was just looking you know if there were any other examples of statutes  on contract formation the question is whether reasonably sophisticated smartphone user would find the terms reasonably conspicuous and for those following along at home the key for screens are j h u a one which is the initial three b and j h will five which is the nd screen that you would see if you clicked sign up with email because one of the discussions today has been about that st screen and as the just report found that st screen and the st sign up through facebook is all the court needs to  decide this case but even if their court had any lingering doubts about that st screen don't forget that mr seldom signed up twice again through the nd sign up with email process in which he would have seen a nd screen which again warned him about what he was about to do by clicking the sign up and note that that nd screen places the warning about by signing up i agree to air b and b s terms of service above the sign up button which reduces any concerns about people being good or somehow clicking on the button before you've been entirely taken in the pay but even with regard to the st sign up screen my friend has cited no case where a sign up with facebook button which as the court noted is a fairly common feature across apps which allows people to create their accounts by filling in personal information from other services that they may use does not provide reasonable notice in fact myers in the payment screen which is what we replicate it page twenty eight of the read brief has the same divided set up in fact in that case you have the registration with the sign up with email equivalent at the top and the buttons for signing up with  wallet and pay pal at the bottom and the warning about by signing up i agree to following it and that was found to be sufficient and there's really four features about air b n b sign a page that make it reasonably conspicuous here st the  signing up warning appears roughly in the middle of the page it's in close proximity to all three boxes nd the links appear in a dark red font that contrasts with the white background in contrast with the black text around it mr selden argues in his brief  mix of colors would be confusing in fact it's the mix of colors that makes it conspicuous because a reasonable internet user would understand oh if some text is black and some texas red what makes the red text different is it must be a hyperli and rd the texts clearly legible it's roughly the same size as already an air b n b member sign in which again gives a hint that it's a hyperlink because if you see a lot of the end that's in the read tax you must realize that oh the other read text must be hyperlinks as well and the page is simple and uncluttered the only elements on the page of the three signed up buttons may be the by signing up i agree warning and the already an error being beast member state that's all that's on the page there's nothing to draw the user away or distract them or to keep them from noticing the terms of service like and so for all those reasons there is it's a reasonably sophisticated internet news are not someone who's dropped from ours and has never used a computer before but someone who uses the smartphone in their everyday life would understand what he was about to do by signing out and courts have routinely held that this kind of sign up rap isn't forcible generale you asked if there are statutes that categorically do not allow for arbiter ability  in the title to contest or you asked regarding title twenty one example of the automobile dealers fair day in court act i think it's called and what that's actually simply says and says quite clearly is there cannot be pre arbitration disputes under for claims that arise out of this act so when congress wants to make something not arsham arbitron will it rarely does it because of the strong principle in favor of our richard delivery but it does though also the federal arbitration act itself has  such as contracts that involve i think interstate transportation and commerce title two by contrast says that there are several court jurisdiction under it but that does not displace that arbitral form and it says that the remedies in the statute  exclusive which is fine because under the arbitration agreement mr selden could have received every single remedy that's available to him under title two or any of the other statutes he says is there any case law that construe that the way you want us to or any other statutes with this language that have reached the construction that you want i don't know of to with regard to the last minute this is not usual language and i see how you're trying to parse it but where is that coming from well i think it's coming from two places the st is just the general presumption of our rich ability which can forget that i understand that but the problem is you have the general presumption of presumption is remarkable and so the question is whether this language which is not typical it's just not typical language and says this is the exclusive suggests that since the exclusive remedy and you're in court are there any other statutes or any any case law construing this statute reach in the result that you want because it's not self evident to me when i st read that i just didn't remember it when i st read read it it did not occur to me that the construction you're giving is the plausible construction i think it's the possible construction judge edwards for the simple and let me answer that question st as i'm not aware necessarily of any case that construes title to an arbitration and i'm not necessarily aware of other statutes that use the exact same language though i'm not going to say they're not out there but i think mom just i'm assuming you would have the construction that they're propounding and i'm trying to figure out why why we would go in a way that's inconsistent with that language would suggest that the exclusive remedy is in court exclusive remedies are in court so what that means is that for instance you can go to federal court you don't have to exhaust remedies such as under title seven when you have to go through the e e o c and it says that these remedies are the only one so you don't supplement them with common law remedies but the statute never says the exclusive remedies are court remedies and that's the key part can i press you on that a little bit because the statute says i agree with you on the jurisdictional provision but then there's a remedies provision and it says the remedies provided shall be the exclusive means of enforcing now the word remedies is a little bit ambiguous if it could mean form of relief but it also could man forum or tribunals right we often speak of judicial remedies are supposed to arbitrate remedies and this statutes talks about remedies as a nene's of enforcing which to me at least somewhat suggests or come out as a forum rather th a type of relief i think i would disagree with that judge katz's because i i think when you speak of the remedies it's talking about you know we're not supplementing common law remedies let's say he said with sayings forum so long as you could get the same subset of relief you could have in court and i don't understand your forum to be one of the remedies that's afforded under the act it might be the place you bring the suit but it is not one of the remedies that the act provides in fact i'm not aware of jurisdiction being a way that you can for something and might be the place you go to enforce something if you're parsing the tax but it's not an actual inforce meant of the act but even then you have to consider that you know accent you may think there may be an ambiguity in the language all of that has to be read against the general presumption in favor of arbiter ability that says that if congress wants to make something on our trouble it has to be fairly clear in doing so and so as i said in the autumn of