Babcock v. Neutron Holdings, Inc., 454 F.Supp.3d 1222

Plaintiff Jordan Babcock rented a Lime e-scooter via Lime’s smartphone app, tapped the app’s lime-green “I Agree” button during registration, and later suffered serious injuries while riding the scooter.
The sign-up screen displayed a bold “User Agreement” title, a sentence stating “By tapping ‘I Agree’ … I have read and agreed to Lime’s User Agreement,” and a blue boldface hyperlink to the full User Agreement.
The User Agreement (accessible via the hyperlink) contained a broad arbitration clause requiring arbitration of all disputes and a delegation clause assigning arbitrability issues to the arbitrator; it also stated the FAA governs arbitrability and that California law governs contract formation.
Babcock sued Lime in state court for negligence; Lime removed to federal court and moved to compel arbitration under the User Agreement.
Babcock argued the arbitration clause was unenforceable under California law because she lacked reasonable notice; Lime argued the sign-up screen provided inquiry notice and pointed to the delegation clause.
The court found the sign-up constituted a “sign‑in wrap,” held the interface gave a reasonably prudent smartphone user inquiry notice of the User Agreement (including the arbitration clause), found the delegation clause valid and unchallenged, and granted Lime’s motion to compel arbitration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parties formed an agreement to arbitrate	Babcock: no reasonable notice of arbitration provision; thus no assent	Lime: sign-up screen placed users on inquiry notice; tapping “I Agree” manifested assent	Court: sign-up is a sign‑in wrap; interface was conspicuous enough to give inquiry notice and form an arbitration agreement
Applicable notice standard for web/app contracts	Babcock: sought to rely on California “reasonable notice” requirement	Lime: inquiry notice under California law suffices for sign‑in wrap agreements	Court: applied inquiry‑notice standard (California law) and found notice adequate
Who decides enforceability/arbitrability	Babcock: asked court to decide validity of arbitration agreement	Lime: delegation clause commits arbitrability to arbitrator	Court: delegation clause valid; Babcock did not specifically challenge it, so arbitrability is for the arbitrator
Effect on litigation	Babcock: proceed in court on negligence claim	Lime: compel arbitration and stay/close court case	Court: granted motion to compel arbitration; denied other dismissal arguments as moot and administratively closed the case

Bazemore v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, 827 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2016) (summary‑judgment‑like standard for deciding existence of an arbitration agreement)
Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (web/app users are bound if interface puts a reasonably prudent user on inquiry notice)
Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017) (clarity and conspicuousness of arbitration terms depend on interface design; smartphone users recognize blue hyperlinked text)
Parnell v. CashCall, Inc., 804 F.3d 1142 (11th Cir. 2015) (delegation clauses are enforceable; courts decide enforcement only if delegation clause itself is specifically challenged)
Rent‑A‑Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) (parties may assign threshold arbitrability questions to the arbitrator; delegation clause severable)
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006) (arbitration agreements are on equal footing with other contracts)
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (ambiguities about arbitrability resolved in favor of arbitration)
Emp’rs Ins. of Wausau v. Bright Metal Specialties, Inc., 251 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2001) (state law governs formation; federal law governs enforceability of arbitration agreements)
Specht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002) (offeree not bound by inconspicuous contractual provisions of which they are unaware)