It is a totally reasonable discussion of what assent entails, is clear that assent only exists when people actually read the notice, and placed the burden on the companies, etc.

One can disagree with the law at issue here, but the court was very carefully following it, and had a meaningful and thoughtful discussion of the issues involved.

Which you dismiss as just "trying to clear their dockets" because apparently you don't like the law as it is (which is cool, but not the courts job)

You have made no attempt to justify this claim, which, I suspect, you pulled out of thin air, though it amounts to a provocative accusation of significant ethical bankruptcy and judicial malpractice in "these courts" (whichever courts you may be referring to). Do better.

The 9th district court of appeals, something that's on the first page of the ruling. Did you read it? That was implicit in this comment thread.

And the justification is the fact that this is an unpublished ruling "This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3"

That alone is a good sign that these judges don't really think this is a great argument.

And, if you read the ruling (which lacks a dissent). It's extremely weak. California law requires that the end user makes an affirmative action to accept a TOS agreement in the form of checking a box or clicking a button. Something the court admits the defendant does not do.

They make a lot of hay around how wonderful the email was, but who cares? Just showing someone text does not count as accepting the TOS.

They had to construe the fact that the plaintiff used the app later as being an acceptance of the TOS. TOS which include moving the case of stalking out of the federal courts and into the arbitration courts which Tile picked. The fact that this reduces their case load is apparent because if they didn't force this into arbitration the court would end up dealing with all the appeals that Tile would invariably file.

Maybe you should do better and actually read the linked ruling before accusing others. My example is exactly the sort of behavior that this court would find acceptable for accepting a TOS change.

I'm assuming bad motivations because this is a garbage ruling. And the only reason why they'd make such a ruling is case load. That, in fact, is charitable to these judges.

No, this is a totally normal thing, at least for the 9th circuit (and a few others). They do not publish all rulings, and they don't designate all opinions as precedential.

The rest is just disagreement with governing law, framed as if the court should have disregarded it and done what you wanted.

"California law requires that the end user makes an affirmative action to accept a TOS agreement in the form of checking a box or clicking a button. Something the court admits the defendant does not do."

This is only true as of July 1st, 2025. So was not in force at the time of this dispute.

"Just showing someone text does not count as accepting the TOS."

During the time, it did, as the court explains pretty well.

It is hilarious that you think this was about clearing a docket.

As a lawyer, I would guess this was literally the last thing they cared about here.

I also happen to think consumers get shafted and am quite happy with california's recent contract law changes, but ... this ruling is quite clearly reasonable, if not totally correct based on the law as it existed at the time.