Establishing Constructive Assent in Click-Wrap Agreements:
Newton v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

I. Introduction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Laura Lane Newton v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., has delivered a precedential opinion that further shapes the law governing online arbitration agreements—specifically those manifested through click-wrap assent. This decision reverses a district court’s refusal to compel arbitration, holding that Experian produced sufficient evidence to prove the plaintiff’s constructive agreement to arbitrate under Georgia contract law.

At stake was whether Experian, relying on a declaration from a corporate officer and accompanying screenshots, satisfied its initial burden under § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to demonstrate the formation of an arbitration agreement. The ruling carries implications for businesses that rely on electronic enrollment flows and for consumers who may unknowingly bind themselves to arbitration clauses embedded in hyperlinked terms of use.

II. Summary of the Judgment

• Holding: The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court, finding that Experian’s evidentiary submission was adequate to establish constructive assent and compelled arbitration pursuant to the FAA.
• Key Determination: A detailed declaration describing the enrollment path, corroborated by screenshots and the operative Terms of Use, meets the evidentiary burden where the plaintiff does not create a genuine dispute of material fact.
• Disposition: Case remanded with instructions to compel arbitration and stay further proceedings.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1. Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143 (2024) – Reaffirmed that courts must first determine the existence of an arbitration agreement before referring a dispute to the arbitrator.
2. Bazemore v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, 827 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2016) – Established summary-judgment-like standards for disputes over arbitration formation and emphasized the need for competent evidence of assent.
3. Thornton v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 359 Ga. App. 790, 858 S.E.2d 255 (2021) – Georgia Court of Appeals case underscoring the “objective theory of contract” and constructive notice through conspicuous hyperlinks.
4. Lamonaco v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., __ F.4th __, 2025 WL 1831283 (11th Cir. 2025) – Factually similar; first Eleventh Circuit decision approving Experian’s corporate declaration as sufficient evidence of online assent. Newton cements and extends that reasoning.

B. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in three steps:

1. Federal Framework: Section 4 of the FAA obliges courts to compel arbitration when a valid agreement exists and no genuine dispute of material fact is raised. The court analogized the inquiry to Rule 56 summary-judgment practice.
2. State Contract Principles: Because contract formation is a question of state law, Georgia’s objective theory of assent controlled. Under Georgia law, a reasonable person is deemed to know that blue, underlined text is a hyperlink leading to binding terms—failure to read does not excuse contractual obligations.
3. Application of Evidence: Experian’s declaration (mirroring the one approved in Lamonaco) satisfied all three evidentiary prongs identified in Bazemore: (a) content of the Terms of Use; (b) manner in which they were displayed; (c) declarant’s personal knowledge of the enrollment records. Newton offered no contradictory evidence—her mere assertion of non-assent was insufficient to create a triable issue.

C. Impact of the Decision

• Lower Evidentiary Threshold Reaffirmed: Corporations may rely on a single, well-crafted declaration and supporting user-interface captures to compel arbitration, without producing individualized logs for every click event.
• Guidance for District Courts: Newton directs judges to grant motions to compel unless the plaintiff produces specific evidence (e.g., device-specific display anomalies) casting doubt on assent, as in Thornton.
• Consumer Litigation Strategy: Plaintiffs must marshal affidavits, metadata, or technical reports to rebut corporate declarations; naked denials will not suffice.
• Business Practices: The decision incentivizes firms to keep meticulous back-end records and preserve screenshots of enrollment flows contemporaneous with each revision to Terms of Use documents.
• Broader Arbitration Jurisprudence: By aligning online assent doctrine with traditional contract concepts of constructive notice, Newton narrows the gap between physical-world signature cases and digital click-wrap scenarios.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

Click-Wrap Agreement

An online contract where a user manifests assent by clicking an “I agree” or similar button situated near a hyperlink to the terms.

Constructive Assent / Constructive Notice

A legal fiction that binds a party to terms they did not actually read, provided the terms were reasonably available and conspicuously presented.

Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) § 4

Provision enabling a party to petition a court to compel arbitration, requiring the court to order arbitration when no genuine dispute exists over the agreement’s formation.

Summary-Judgment-Like Standard

A civil-procedure analogy: the movant must produce evidence; the non-movant must respond with specific facts showing a genuine dispute. Mere denials or speculation are insufficient.

V. Conclusion

Newton v. Experian crystallizes a pragmatic evidentiary rule for digital-age contract disputes: a declarant’s first-hand account of enrollment mechanics, bolstered by screenshots and the operative terms, is enough to shift the burden to the consumer. Absent concrete counter-evidence, courts must compel arbitration. This decision strengthens the enforceability of click-wrap agreements in the Eleventh Circuit, offers a roadmap for corporate compliance, and signals to litigants that generalized challenges to online assent will seldom survive. In the broader context, Newton harmonizes state contract doctrine with federal arbitration policy, ensuring that online commerce retains both flexibility and predictability in dispute resolution.