Rohan Dhruva v. CuriosityStream, Inc.

Rohan Dhruva v. CuriosityStream, Inc. · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 10, 2025 · No. 24-1080

Summary

This Fourth Circuit opinion determines whether users of an online streaming service manifested assent to an arbitration clause by registering for a subscription. The court concluded that the website's interface provided reasonable notice that registering would constitute agreement to the Terms of Use, which included the arbitration provision. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Toby Heytens; John Quattlebaum; John Wilkinson
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decision date
March 10, 2025
Docket number
24-1080
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Standard of review
De novo for orders denying motions to compel arbitration; abuse of discretion for reconsideration denial.
Precedential value
published
Parties
CuriosityStream, Inc. v. Rohan Dhruva and Joshua Stern
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

contract formationcontract interpretationcommercial litigationappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

contractscommercial litigationappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the users assented to the arbitration clause by registering for the service
  2. Whether the district court erred in denying CuriosityStream's motion to compel arbitration

Holdings

  1. The users agreed to arbitrate when they registered for the streaming service because they had reasonable notice that registering would constitute assent to the website’s Terms of Use, which included an arbitration clause.

Key quotations

We conclude the users agreed to arbitrate when they registered for the streaming service because they had reasonable notice that registering would constitute assent to the website’s terms of use, which included an arbitration clause. (JA 22)
A user’s click of a button can be construed as an unambiguous manifestation of assent only if the user is explicitly advised that the act of clicking will constitute assent to the terms and conditions of an agreement. (JA 54)

Factual background

Rohan Dhruva and Joshua Stern, California residents, created CuriosityStream.com accounts, paid subscription fees, and later alleged that CuriosityStream violated the Video Privacy Protection Act and California law by sharing their data with Meta. CuriosityStream moved to compel arbitration based on its Terms of Use, which were presented via a conspicuous orange hyperlink during the sign‑up process.

Procedural history

The district court denied CuriosityStream's motion to compel arbitration and also denied a motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo and reversed, remanding for further proceedings.

Remand instructions

Remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…