N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GER ALD M c GHEE, a

n individual, on be ha lf of him se lf a

nd a ll othe rs sim i la

rly situa te d, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. NOR TH AM ER IC AN B A NC ARD, LLC , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-56248

DC No. C V 17-0586 AJB
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony J. B a tta glia , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A and WARDLAW , C irc uit Judge s, a n d PR ATT, ** Distric t Judge
. De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt North Am e ric a

n B a n c a rd, LLC (“NAB ” ), a

ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s orde r de ny ing its motion to c om pe l a rbitration in a

puta tive c la ss 

# FIL ED
MAR 06 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble R obe rt W . Pra tt, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Iowa , sitting by de signa t ion.a c tion file d by Pla intiff-Appe lle e Ge ra ld M c Ghe e (“ M c Ghe e ” ), a m e rc ha nt who signe d up for NAB ’ s c re dit c ard proc e ssing se rvic e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 9 U.S.C . § 16(a )(1)(B ), and we re vie w de novo thede n i a l of a m otion to c o m

pe l
arbitration. N

guy e n v . Barne

s & N obleInc
. , 763 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th C ir. 2014). W e a ffirm
. M c Ghe e did not a sse nt to thearbitration c la use on the Use r Agre e m e nt
we bpa ge . Although M c G h e e a sse nte d to the Te rm s a nd C onditions when filling out the online a

pplic a tion by

c l ic king on thebutton ne xt to the “ I have re a d a nd
a gre e to the Te rm s a

nd C o nditions”hy

pe rlink, theTe rm s a

nd C onditions we

bpa ge did not provide

c onstruc tive notic e to a

re a sona bly prude nt use r that the Use r Agre e m e nt wa s a pa

rt of the c ontra c t be twe e n NAB and its c ustom e rs. Se e id. a t 1178–79 (“ [W ] he re a

we bsite m ake s its te rm s of use ava ila b le via a c onspic uous hy pe rlink on e ve ry

pa ge of the we b site but othe rwise provide s no notic e to use rs nor prom pts the m to ta k e any a ffirm a tive a c t ion to de m o nstra te a s se nt, e ve n c lose proxim ity of the hy pe rlink to re le va

nt buttons use

rs m ust c lic k on— without
m ore
— is insuffic ie n t to giverise to c onstruc tive notic e .” ). He re , the link to the Use r Agre e m e n t we bpa ge on the Te rm s a nd C onditions we

bpa ge did not re quire
any a ffirm ative a c tion to de m o nstra te a sse n t; the te xt sim

p ly sta te d, “ Vie w the Use r Agre e m e n t he re ” and did not indic a te tha t the Use r Agre e m e nt wa s
2inc o rporate d into the Te rm s a nd C onditions. Furthe

r, the Te rm s a

n d C onditions
we bpa ge c onta i ne d doc um e n ts a nd links to m

o re doc um e nt tha

t we re e xc lusive to
e a c h othe r. M ore ove r, the twe nty -fourth pa ra gra ph on the Te rm s a

nd C onditions
we bpa ge c onta i ne d a m e rge r c la use tha t sta te d, “ [t] he Agre e m e nt, inc luding the se Te rm s a nd C onditions a

nd the M e rc h ant Applic a tion, c onstitute s the e ntire Agre e m e nt be twe e n M e rc ha nt, Globa l Dire c t, a

nd M e m be r and supe rse de s a ll prior
m e m o randa

or a gre e m e nts re lat ing the re to, whe the r ora l or in writing.” B a se d on the l ay out of the Te rm s a

nd C onditions we

bpa ge an d this m e rge r c la use , a
re a s ona bly prude nt use r would not e xpe c t to ne e d to look for hy pe rlinks to
we bpa ge s othe r tha

n the Te rm s a

nd C onditions we

bpa ge or the we bpa ge tha t
c onta ine d the a

pplic a tion for thec re dit c ard proc e ssing se rvic e . The onus fe ll on NAB to put its custom e rs on notic e of the binding te rm s of the c ontra c t in a c le ar
and stra ightforwa

rd wa y . Se e id. at 1179. NAB fa ile d to do so, inste a d c a using
c onfusion through the

c onvolute d pla c e m e nt of c ontra dic tory doc um e n ts on its
we bsite . The re fore , M c G he e did not a sse n t to thearbitration c la use on the Use r Agre e m e nt we bpa ge whe n a sse nting to the Te rm s a nd C onditions. Ne ve rthe le s s, NAB argue s tha t the distric t c ourt’ s orde r should be re ve rse d be c a use M c Ghe e fa ile d to providea de c la ration or othe r sim ila

r e v ide nc e to re but
3NAB ’ s a lle ge d “ prim a fa c i e ” showing tha

t M c Ghe e a sse nte d to the Use r Agre e m e nt. B ut, for the re a sons liste d a bove , NAB did not m a

k e a “ prim a fa c ie ” showing tha

t M c Ghe e a s se nte d to the Use r Agre e m e nt a nd the arbitration c la

use ; the re fore , it wa s unne c e ssa ry for M c Ghe e to providere b utting e vide nc e . Se e id. at 1177 (“ [W ] he re . . . the re is no e vide nc e tha t the we bsite use r ha d a c tua l knowle dge of the a g re e m e nt, the va lidity of the browse wra

p a gre e m e nt turns on whe the r the we bsite puts a re a sona bly prude nt use r on inquiry notic e of the te rm s of the c ontra c t.” ). AFFIRM E D.

4