[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:00:01] Speaker 04:
May it please the court?

[00:00:03] Speaker 04:
My name is Jeanette Barzolet with Foley & Lardner, and I represent the appellant defendant Yippee Entertainment.

[00:00:08] Speaker 04:
I would like to reserve a minute and a half for my rebuttal.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
All right?

[00:00:12] Speaker 04:
I'll watch the clock.

[00:00:13] Speaker 04:
Yippee is a producer of faith-based video content for children and families, and it provides access to that content through exclusively a paid subscription model.

[00:00:23] Speaker 04:
The threshold issue on this appeal and the only issue that the district court decided below

[00:00:27] Speaker 04:
is whether Yippee's subscription sign-up page provided sufficient constructive notice to the plaintiff of the terms and the arbitration agreement in them.

[00:00:35] Speaker 04:
And the answer is yes, and I'll spend the majority of my time explaining why.

[00:00:38] Speaker 04:
But first, I'd like to walk through the Yippee subscription sign-up process that the plaintiff, Ms.

[00:00:43] Speaker 04:
Morrison, experienced when she purchased her subscription.

[00:00:48] Speaker 04:
Every person who wants to view Yippee content must take a number of affirmative steps to sign up for their paid subscription.

[00:00:54] Speaker 04:
They must either have or create a Yippee account,

[00:00:57] Speaker 04:
They must provide their name, email, and payment information.

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
They must then click on a start subscription action button that confirms their intent to purchase that subscription.

[00:01:07] Speaker 04:
And they must agree that by so clicking, they've agreed to our terms of service that will govern their subscription purchase.

[00:01:14] Speaker 01:
Can I ask you for clarification on something?

[00:01:17] Speaker 01:
I just want to make sure that my understanding of the record is correct.

[00:01:21] Speaker 01:
Since the lawsuit,

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
subscription notice has been revised, right?

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
So if I go on it now, that's not what the plaintiffs saw.

[00:01:33] Speaker 04:
I'm actually not certain that's true.

[00:01:34] Speaker 04:
I believe it's the same, but we're only looking at what was at issue in September of 2023.

[00:01:42] Speaker 04:
So at that time, the terms were then made available to the consumer through a conspicuous blue link, which would display a pointer finger when the user placed the cursor over top.

[00:01:51] Speaker 04:
And if they clicked that link, they would be directed to a separate YIPPE webpage

[00:01:54] Speaker 04:
with the full text of the terms, advising two things clear right up front.

[00:01:59] Speaker 04:
First, that they are, in fact, the terms that will govern the user's use of the service through which they'll view the video content.

[00:02:05] Speaker 04:
And second, that those terms contain a mandatory arbitration agreement with those terms in bold and capital letters.

[00:02:11] Speaker 04:
The plaintiff, Ms.

[00:02:12] Speaker 04:
Morrison, in this case, like all other YIPI subscribers at that time, took each of these steps when she signed up in September of 2023.

[00:02:20] Speaker 04:
Now the question again for this court is whether those steps and the design of the page provided sufficient notice to Ms.

[00:02:25] Speaker 04:
Morrison of those terms.

[00:02:27] Speaker 04:
And under this court's precedence, Yippee did provide sufficient notice.

[00:02:31] Speaker 04:
That well-worn test for constructive notice is whether, first, the web page provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms, meaning it's displayed in a font size and format that allows the court to assume a reasonably prudent user would see it.

[00:02:44] Speaker 04:
And two, that that user takes some action such as clicking a button that will unambiguously manifest consent to the terms.

[00:02:50] Speaker 00:
Some of our case laws talked about when you have multiple links close together that that can create confusion.

[00:02:55] Speaker 00:
It seems like that's going on in this website.

[00:02:58] Speaker 00:
So how do you deal with that problem?

[00:03:00] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:03:01] Speaker 04:
I believe in this case, again, we're looking at the totality of the circumstances.

[00:03:05] Speaker 04:
There were a series of links presented in the disclosure paragraph above the button, but they were separated by a black comma.

[00:03:11] Speaker 04:
And the titles make clear that they're separate things.

[00:03:13] Speaker 04:
So we have the terms of service, a privacy policy, a cookies policy.

[00:03:19] Speaker 04:
And if the user then clicked each of those, they would be a separate link to a separate page.

[00:03:23] Speaker 04:
So we believe in the context of the design of this page, the presence of other links was not confusing about what terms applied to the transaction.

[00:03:35] Speaker 04:
As a third sort of ancillary part of the test, courts look at the transactions context as well and are more likely to enforce a set of linked terms if the context contemplates some type of ongoing relationship like the subscription purchase here.

[00:03:49] Speaker 04:
Now, as this court recently confirmed in the Go Do and Be Just answer case, there's no checklist or bright line test.

[00:03:55] Speaker 04:
We're looking at a totality of the circumstances and even minor differences can make the difference and we believe they do tip the scales in Gibby's favor on element one and that's where the district court aired.

[00:04:06] Speaker 04:
First, the link to the terms was set off in bright blue text against a white background, which is the traditional way of designating a hyperlink.

[00:04:14] Speaker 04:
Second, if the user clicked those bright blue terms link, they'd be transferred to a separate page containing the full set of terms with Yippee's logo at the top and advising in bold capital letters that it contained an arbitration agreement.

[00:04:27] Speaker 04:
Third, we believe the link was prominently displayed in a disclosure paragraph just above the action button.

[00:04:32] Speaker 01:
Council, if we agree with you on the reasonably conspicuous prong, do we send it back to the district court for determination of mutual assent or do we assess that secondary step in the first instance?

[00:04:46] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:04:48] Speaker 04:
All the court has to do is address element one because that is the only issue that the district court decided below.

[00:04:54] Speaker 04:
We believe it's appropriate for this court to exercise its discretion and address element two, mutual assent, because that issue was fully briefed and presented to the court below, and it's an issue of law whether that consent was unambiguous or not.

[00:05:06] Speaker 04:
So we believe the court can decide element two in this case, and we think it should in our favor, but the court does not need to reach that issue because the district court did not decide it.

[00:05:16] Speaker 04:
Turning back to the analysis, the third element here, the link was prominently displayed, again, in a disclosure paragraph.

[00:05:23] Speaker 04:
beneath the payment information and above that action button, which breaks up the user's natural flow and makes sure the user will see it.

[00:05:29] Speaker 04:
And then the text of the button as well, start subscription, was very clear what action the user was going to take that would constitute a transaction and to which those terms would apply.

[00:05:40] Speaker 04:
Fourth, the text was not extremely small or barely legible, like in some of the other cases, like in Berman.

[00:05:46] Speaker 03:
And finally, the text is not cluttered or obscured by other features.

[00:06:01] Speaker 03:
to answer this afterwards if you don't answer it now.

[00:06:03] Speaker 03:
But like you now have a little click box that you have to check and then you, and I, you know, I assume your colleagues on the other side are going to say, well, you changed it because you, that's sort of an admission that it was deficient before.

[00:06:18] Speaker 03:
What is your response to that?

[00:06:19] Speaker 04:
First, I apologize if I'm not fully up to speed on those changes.

[00:06:23] Speaker 04:
Again, for this purpose, we're looking at what was that issue for Ms.

[00:06:25] Speaker 04:
Morrison.

[00:06:27] Speaker 04:
Having not seen it, I can't opine.

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
I don't believe that it's... You know how you've been... Yeah, I understand what it looks like, yes.

[00:06:33] Speaker 03:
You didn't have that before.

[00:06:34] Speaker 04:
I don't believe it.

[00:06:35] Speaker 03:
It looks pretty similar.

[00:06:36] Speaker 04:
Yeah, I don't believe that makes a material difference.

[00:06:39] Speaker 04:
That would make it more like a click box as opposed to the sign-in wrap agreement.

[00:06:44] Speaker 04:
I still believe in this case that the text advised that by clicking below, she was going to agree that button was right there and the user's flow would lead her to that button.

[00:06:55] Speaker 04:
So I still believe it's

[00:06:56] Speaker 04:
satisfies the Berman test.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
Element two, Berman says... It will make a difference on the mutual assent, unambiguous manifestation of assent analysis.

[00:07:06] Speaker 04:
It might make it stronger, Your Honor.

[00:07:07] Speaker 04:
I don't disagree with that point, but I think we've already satisfied that, even under the sign-and-wrap agreement and the Berman test, because the language advises that the user, when clicking below, is going to agree to that set of terms, and the button's right there beneath.

[00:07:19] Speaker 04:
So in the context of the transaction, I believe it's sufficiently clear, and we've already satisfied element two.

[00:07:25] Speaker 04:
So I don't believe

[00:07:26] Speaker 04:
It changes it or it's dispositive in terms of the outcome of the case.

[00:07:31] Speaker 00:
I think our case law here is a bit of a mess in terms of it seems like if I look at a website and think I would be confused, I can say that it's not good enough.

[00:07:39] Speaker 00:
And if I look at it and think I wouldn't be confused, then I can say it's fine.

[00:07:42] Speaker 00:
There's a lot of squishiness here.

[00:07:44] Speaker 00:
What's your best case?

[00:07:46] Speaker 04:
We believe, Your Honor, actually the overseen case, 9th Circuit case, is favorable.

[00:07:51] Speaker 04:
That court analyzed two separate pages, both a sign up page and a payment page.

[00:07:56] Speaker 04:
And I believe the design of those pages is substantially similar to the design of Yippee.

[00:07:59] Speaker 00:
Oberstein had three levels, right?

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
Am I missing?

[00:08:03] Speaker 00:
I've read so many of these cases.

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
They're starting to blend.

[00:08:05] Speaker 00:
But if I'm remembering right, Oberstein had three different spots where you took action or you had information to receive.

[00:08:14] Speaker 00:
Am I right about that?

[00:08:15] Speaker 04:
It did have a sign-up page and a payment page.

[00:08:17] Speaker 04:
But as I recall, the court analyzed them separately and found that both of them were sufficient.

[00:08:23] Speaker 04:
on their own.

[00:08:25] Speaker 04:
Chiboya, I know, had three different pages that the party in that case was trying to sort of cobble together to create constructive notice, and the court found that that was not sufficient.

[00:08:33] Speaker 04:
But I believe the design and overseeing either the sign-up page or the payment page is similar, where there were kind of graphics on the left-hand side, but then the user reading left to right is directed to the right, where following that flow from top to bottom, they are filling in their registration information, then beneath the payment, and then the disclosure is right there beneath.

[00:08:51] Speaker 04:
So the I is following down.

[00:08:52] Speaker 04:
towards that button, and then they have to decide in the end, do I want to make this purchase?

[00:08:56] Speaker 04:
And they have the opportunity to click the links to the terms above that are going to apply to that or not.

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
I know you wanted to save a little bit of time.

[00:09:05] Speaker 04:
I still have a minute.

[00:09:07] Speaker 04:
So I think, oh, no, I have a minute overall.

[00:09:09] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:09:09] Speaker 04:
I believe, actually, that we've covered all the issues, so I will yield my time and yield to Mr. Roberts.

[00:09:14] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:09:25] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
Max Roberts, Bursar and Fisher for Plaintiff Appellee Brittany Morrison, and I'm joined by my colleague Victoria Zhao, also a Bursar and Fisher.

[00:09:33] Speaker 02:
So the first thing I want to address, as Judge Van Dyke pointed out, is yes, the terms have changed on Yippee's website.

[00:09:40] Speaker 02:
But it's not just that there's a checkbox.

[00:09:42] Speaker 02:
They've taken the advisor that is specific to the Vimeo terms.

[00:09:47] Speaker 02:
They put it in a separate paragraph from the automatic renewal terms.

[00:09:50] Speaker 02:
They put that advisor right above the button that the user has to click on.

[00:09:54] Speaker 02:
And they've removed the Google terms.

[00:09:57] Speaker 02:
And I could certainly nitpick.

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
I could say, oh, there's the space between the advisable and the automatic.

[00:10:01] Speaker 03:
I guess the question is what to do with something like that.

[00:10:05] Speaker 03:
Because if I get sued for something, and I think that what I'm doing is just fine, but my lawyers are going to tell me, court might disagree with you.

[00:10:14] Speaker 03:
Especially, as my colleague said, it seems like this is a very odd area of the law with

[00:10:20] Speaker 03:
where you just might get smacked if you're a company.

[00:10:23] Speaker 03:
So why wouldn't you make these changes?

[00:10:25] Speaker 03:
But I don't know that, you know, are we supposed to draw from that, like that admission that they were wrong?

[00:10:30] Speaker 02:
No, Your Honor, that's impermissible under, I think, 407.

[00:10:34] Speaker 03:
So let me ask you a question about your, how was your monitor set up?

[00:10:40] Speaker 03:
Is your monitor set up this way, or is your monitor set up this way in the office?

[00:10:45] Speaker 02:
Actually, I have both, Your Honor, but my main one is horizontal.

[00:10:50] Speaker 03:
If you look at the, if you look at their page, you know, you gave us the page and it looked like this, but the problem is I don't think most people see the page like that, right?

[00:10:59] Speaker 03:
When they, you know, when I look at it on my regular monitor which is what they call it, landscape, is that what they call it?

[00:11:05] Speaker ?:
Landscape.

[00:11:06] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:11:06] Speaker 03:
The page is cut in half.

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
And so that's that, how does that affect, I didn't really see that actually addressed by either side, but how does that affect I think the,

[00:11:18] Speaker 03:
the argument that it's cluttered because a lot of this stuff that you're saying that you guys emphasize and the district court emphasizes being cluttered is actually above the fold so to speak when you don't even see it when you're looking at it in that traditional way.

[00:11:33] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I would still say that the terms hyperlink is inconspicuous because there's still the multiple hyperlinks, there's the Vimeo terms, and there's the Google terms.

[00:11:42] Speaker 02:
The user's eyes are going to be drawn to the blue button, the start subscription button, and it's still buried in a... So you're relying heavily on the fact that there's multiple hyperlinks, which I think is true.

[00:11:52] Speaker 03:
What about the... There are several aspects, though, that the district court relied on.

[00:11:56] Speaker 03:
One is the fact the clutter in this aspect seems to me to be affected by the fact that

[00:12:01] Speaker 03:
You see you understand saying that it takes yes, well, the other thing that seems to be affected by that is it does look really tiny.

[00:12:09] Speaker 03:
When you look at it the way you guys presented it, but obviously if you break it up and expand it to the side then it doesn't appear near as tiny so what I mean what do we do with that I can't find cases that.

[00:12:19] Speaker 03:
Tell me what to do with that.

[00:12:21] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, the only evidence that I can point to is the way that it was presented in the record, although I understand your point is a practical matter.

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
Nobody's looking at it this way, right?

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
They're looking at it on it.

[00:12:30] Speaker 03:
And as I recall, your client actually said that she, I think it was she, looked at it on

[00:12:36] Speaker 03:
On a computer screen, right?

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
Yes, they didn't even look at it on here.

[00:12:40] Speaker 02:
So it's still the other point that I was going to make your honor is that it's still in a paragraph that largely deals with other terms and we've cited cases like the Seneca case, which I understand is unpublished, but it's a Ninth Circuit case.

[00:12:52] Speaker 02:
There's the Tejon case from the Southern District of Florida.

[00:12:55] Speaker 02:
And both of those discuss how when you have the Herzog case from the California Supreme Court.

[00:13:00] Speaker 02:
And all of those discuss that when you have other terms on the page, it leads the user to the impression that those are the only terms that there are.

[00:13:08] Speaker 02:
So even if a user read every little line of this paragraph, they're still going to be under the impression that, oh, this is just dealing with automatic renewal.

[00:13:15] Speaker 02:
It's not dealing with some other company's terms.

[00:13:18] Speaker 03:
Yeah, so when I read all

[00:13:20] Speaker 03:
I read these cases, which just left me feeling sorry for companies, right?

[00:13:26] Speaker 03:
I got the impression that the Ninth Circuit, a lot of the cases, first of all, are the Ninth Circuit, which is kind of odd.

[00:13:31] Speaker 03:
We have opinions on this, and it's really California law, supposedly.

[00:13:36] Speaker 03:
When I read all of it, I kind of came with the impression if I was advising a company that I'd be like, I don't know how you can get away from, how you can be absolutely sure you wouldn't be found liable by some court unless you created, and I forget the term, but the one where the box pops up and you click on it, that we all find super annoying when we have to, like that extra step that we have to go through when we, but is that sort of, is that the takeaway here that we can only, the only way you can escape liability

[00:14:03] Speaker 03:
Under these tests is if you just don't even have this type was a click.

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
Is this a what is this?

[00:14:07] Speaker 02:
This is a sign-up wrap your honor, but yeah So let me make two points on that your honor if I may the first and this is what I was getting at with Yippee's changes is that it's very trivial to fix a sign-up wrap screen I

[00:14:19] Speaker 02:
I think what Yippee is currently doing is fine, and that took probably an hour of somebody's time.

[00:14:25] Speaker 02:
And the real inquiry under all of these cases, it's not this rigid checklist.

[00:14:29] Speaker 02:
It's have you set the terms that you were trying to bind users apart?

[00:14:33] Speaker 03:
And you had to make them- What is it about their current page?

[00:14:35] Speaker 03:
Is it the fact that they have to check that little box, or is it not that?

[00:14:39] Speaker 02:
What is it about their current page?

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
That makes you think that it's okay, whereas the old one wasn't.

[00:14:43] Speaker 02:
It's the fact that they have taken the advisor pertaining to the Vimeo terms.

[00:14:47] Speaker 02:
They've separated it out and they put it directly above the button.

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
So it's not involved in this paragraph.

[00:14:55] Speaker 03:
That just seems, your average customer, we're all buying stuff all the time.

[00:14:58] Speaker 03:
We're racing through, we're like wishing that people just had the buy it now option like Amazon has, right?

[00:15:03] Speaker 03:
And so the idea that real customers are, this all just feels,

[00:15:08] Speaker 03:
Like, kind of made up.

[00:15:10] Speaker 02:
I mean, let's speak practically for a second, your honor, right?

[00:15:14] Speaker 02:
Nobody reads these terms and conditions.

[00:15:16] Speaker 02:
Exactly.

[00:15:17] Speaker 03:
So why does our test says, oh, if you put three hyperlinks beside each other, blow people's mind.

[00:15:22] Speaker 03:
They won't be able to, like...

[00:15:24] Speaker 02:
There has to be some way for companies to contract with consumers over the internet.

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
But the test, the Ninth Circuit has said is you can do that, just give them notice.

[00:15:33] Speaker 02:
And that's really not that hard to do.

[00:15:35] Speaker 02:
And what the Seventh Circuit said in the Segaros versus TransUnion case is that's really easy to accomplish as the enormous... That's what I'm thinking is like 99% of the people are never going to try to find these terms, even if they know they're not going to.

[00:15:46] Speaker 03:
That 1% of the people, here's the thing, but you do want them to be able to get to them if they do want to click through, right?

[00:15:53] Speaker 03:
And that's what I'm struggling with.

[00:15:56] Speaker 03:
If they wanted to find the terms here under the old agreement, not the new one, is it that hard?

[00:16:03] Speaker 03:
I mean, yes, there's three hyperlinks instead of one, but one says terms of use or something, right?

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
So the other point I was going to make, Your Honor, is even if the court assumes that there's notice and assent here, which is a whole separate question, these are not YIPI's terms.

[00:16:18] Speaker 02:
These are a whole separate company's terms.

[00:16:21] Speaker 01:
And as we make clear in our briefing... I think the problem that I have with your argument and the fix that's currently displayed on the web page is that the fix seems to

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
go more towards the manifestation of a scent element than it does to the conspicuousness argument.

[00:16:40] Speaker 01:
Because, you know, we're talking about how cluttered this is, there's a lot there, and I think you said earlier in your response to Judge Van Dyke's question that, well, when you click start subscription, you may think that you're signing up for automatic renewal instead of the link to the terms and conditions.

[00:16:58] Speaker 01:
etc.

[00:16:59] Speaker 01:
But even the fix has it all in the same paragraph.

[00:17:03] Speaker 01:
Now it changes in that it's more explicit instead of saying by clicking below it now says by clicking start subscription so that better meets the case law requirement for explicit advisement of what action you have to do to

[00:17:20] Speaker 01:
to assent, but again that goes to the second element which the district court didn't address.

[00:17:25] Speaker 01:
So how do you, doesn't that undercut your argument that it's all cluttered and they've somehow fixed it?

[00:17:30] Speaker 01:
It's all still there in the same paragraph.

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
So either you don't read it, which most of us don't, or if you read it, it's still all there.

[00:17:39] Speaker 02:
Your honor, the advisal is in a separate paragraph, although I agree with you that the other fix that they made is that instead of by clicking below, which is very ambiguous, it's now by clicking start subscription.

[00:17:50] Speaker 02:
But again, I think even if the court doesn't want to wade into these issues of notice and assent,

[00:17:57] Speaker 02:
The easiest way to resolve this appeal is that these aren't their terms.

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
There's a specific contract or specific provision of the Vimeo terms that say if they have an agreement with Vimeo to arbitrate disputes against consumers, then they can enforce the arbitration agreement here.

[00:18:11] Speaker 03:
So you're saying reach the issue that the district court didn't quite get to.

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
You certainly could, Your Honor, as my friend on the other side pointed out.

[00:18:19] Speaker 02:
The court is empowered to you, although I also understand that the general preference is to remand it for further consideration.

[00:18:24] Speaker 02:
But the third-party beneficiary issue is that there is a specific provision that says if you have a separate agreement with Vimeo, then you can enforce the arbitration clause.

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
There is no evidence of that agreement here, notwithstanding there's no notice or consideration of it.

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
Equitable estoppel, there's none of that here either.

[00:18:42] Speaker 02:
These are separate obligations imposed by statute, and as the forward warranty cases set out that we just submitted in our 28-Jay later of July,

[00:18:50] Speaker 02:
20th, that is not the situation that equitable stop all exists in.

[00:18:57] Speaker 02:
We're not trying to enforce a contract.

[00:18:58] Speaker 02:
These are separate statutory obligations.

[00:19:01] Speaker 02:
So regardless of the notice, regardless of the assent, this court can say, OK, I am just assuming that Yippee is right, but you still can't enforce these terms.

[00:19:10] Speaker 02:
And I think that's the easiest way to resolve this appeal without further muddying the case law if, Judge Van Dyke, your concern is you don't want

[00:19:18] Speaker 02:
You don't want to tell businesses conflicting messages, and you want to sort of make something very clean for them.

[00:19:23] Speaker 02:
And I see my time is up.

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
Unless you have further questions, I'll rest.

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Council.

[00:19:27] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:19:35] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:19:35] Speaker 04:
I'll be as brief as I can.

[00:19:38] Speaker 04:
On the last point, the issue of they aren't our terms.

[00:19:41] Speaker 04:
Respectfully, we disagree.

[00:19:43] Speaker 04:
We've adopted them, yet we adopted them as its own.

[00:19:45] Speaker 04:
linked to them as our terms, it's on a YIPPE webpage, but that again is not an issue of constructive notice.

[00:19:51] Speaker 04:
That's not the threshold issue on this appeal.

[00:19:53] Speaker 04:
Whether YIPPE can enforce those terms as a third-party beneficiary, given there's ample language in the terms benefiting third-party beneficiary producers like YIPPE, is a threshold arbitrability question that is reserved for the arbitrator in this case.

[00:20:07] Speaker 04:
On the viewpoints.

[00:20:08] Speaker 04:
about sufficiency, I agree with Justice Van Dyke, your comments about the cluttered aspect.

[00:20:13] Speaker 04:
The user has to flow down the page past the disclosure to hit the start subscription button.

[00:20:17] Speaker 04:
So whatever emotion emoticons or graphics are elsewhere, we don't believe clutters the page.

[00:20:23] Speaker 04:
I would point the court to Driscoll and Dorman as other cases that had links in a series where the courts found sufficient notice.

[00:20:29] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:20:30] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:20:30] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much, counsel, for both sides for your argument.

[00:20:34] Speaker 01:
The matter is submitted.