Court Finds That Arbitration Clause Found on App Inconspicuous and, Therefore, Unenforceable

In the case of Oakley v. FloatMe Corp., No. 1318 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Oct. 1, 2026 King, J., Lane, J., and Panella, P.J.E.) (Op. by King, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s rejection of a Defendant’s efforts to compel arbitration of this civil litigation matter.

According to the Opinion, FloatMe is a Texas-based technology company that makes loans or cash advances to Pennsylvania consumers over the internet.

This matter arose out of a Class Action matter. After suit was filed, the Defendant filed Preliminary Objections in the nature of a Motion to Compel Arbitration.

FloatMe asserted that the Plaintiffs were required to sign up via FloatMe’s App before she could obtain a cash advance. FloatMe asserted that the App prompts the user to answer several questions and request certain information. One of the prompts on the App provides that , by continuing with the application process, the applicant agrees to FloatMe’s terms of service and privacy policy.

FloatMe further maintained that the terms of service button is clickable and directs the user to an online format of the terms and condition. The company further asserted that, if a user clicks the phrase terms and conditions, those terms and conditions allegedly clearly indicate that the agreement contains an Arbitration provision and a Class Action waiver.

The Plaintiff asserted that the App’s lengthy sign up process included “at least 16 screens” for a consumer to navigate before they may obtain a case advance. The Plaintiff noted that, at no point in that process did FloatMe mention Arbitration or the waiver of any constitutional rights, such as the right to a jury trial.

The Plaintiffs asserted that this type of a sign up process is not sufficient to bind users to Arbitration or the waiver of any constitutional rights such as the right to a jury trial. 

The Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed and held that the FloatMe App did not conspicuously inform the Plaintiff of her rights.  Rather, the court found that the application process on the App allowed users to complete their registration without being fully informed of the rights that the applicant is waiving.

As such, the Superior Court held that there was no mutual assent and no valid agreement entered into with respect to Arbitration.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: The Pa. Super. Blog written by Jon Bruno of Bruno Litigation, LLC in Pittsburgh, PA.

Source of image:  Photo by Brett Jordan on www.unsplash.com.