Insights

On April 21, 2025, the FTC filed an enforcement action against Uber alleging that Uber enrolled consumers in Uber One without proper consent, created substantial barriers to cancellation, and misrepresented the financial benefits of the subscription. The claims include violations of the FTC Act—which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts in commerce—and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”)—which prohibits charging consumers for goods and services sold on the internet through a negative option (i.e., failing to cancel a subscription, unless the seller clearly discloses all material terms of the transaction before obtaining the consumer’s information and obtains the consumer’s expressed informed consent for the charges and provides simple mechanisms for the consumer to stop the recurring charges).

On April 14, 2025, ClassPass, a web-based company offering subscription services to third-party fitness classes, petitioned for rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit’s Chabolla v. ClassPass decision, which held that ClassPass’ users were not bound by the terms of ClassPass’ “sign-in wrap” agreement. The ruling has significant consequences for online companies using sign-in wrap agreements and for online contract formation and enforcement more generally. A sign-in wrap is a type of online agreement in which the agreement is hyperlinked on the website, but the user is not required to access, review, confirm an understanding, or otherwise affirmatively “assent” to be bound. If the Ninth Circuit does not grant ClassPass’ request and issue a new ruling in Chabolla, this case may signal the death knell for sign-in wraps, resulting in significant disruption, friction, and ultimately lower conversion for online companies who will be forced to redesign their sign-up flows to be click-wrap agreements (online agreements that require the user to affirmatively accept a company’s terms of use by clicking an assent box or button). Short of that, this decision increases business risk given that there are now conflicting opinions both within the Ninth Circuit and between the various Circuits.

On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment.  The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases.  As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts.  The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees.  For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm. 

When President Joe Biden issued the Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in 2023, his administration recognized not only the extraordinary promise of artificial intelligence (AI) but also the risks that irresponsible use of the technology posed. The risks identified by the President include algorithmic discrimination in activities that impact consumers, job candidates, and employees.