Ready to Register?

MyLawCLE All-Access Pass

Best choice

Add the All-Access Pass and get this program —
plus 1,000+ live CLE programs every year.


All specialty & ethics credits included
38 practice areas
New sections: AI & the Law, Practice Management
100s of current and trending legal topics
Nationally recognized and highly experienced presenters

$395 / year — this program included
Register with the All-Access Pass

This program + 1,000+ CLE programs, all year

Or register for just this program

Live Video Broadcast

Live webinar of this one program.
$195 Register

On-Demand Video

Recorded access + self-study credit.
$195 Register

The Cookie Banner Is Now a Contract: Drafting Consent Flows That Compel Arbitration

Courts voided online agreements in 2025–2026 over banner design — and read cookie banners as binding contracts. Learn to evaluate banners for enforceability risk, run the eight-point consent-flow audit, remediate deficient arbitration clauses, and select the right forum.

2026-09-17 14:30:00

Program Details

2026-09-17 14:30:00

2026-09-17 14:30:00

2h CLE Credits

2026-09-17 14:30:00

Program Details

2026-09-17 14:30:00

Program Details

2026-09-17 14:30:00

Over 1,000+ webinars

2026-09-17 14:30:00

Course Overview

The Banner That Passes Privacy Review Can Still Void Your Arbitration Clause

2026-09-17 14:30:00

Cookie banners are no longer just privacy-consent compliance. A 2025–2026 wave of Ninth Circuit and district court decisions now treats them as contract-formation mechanisms. Those banners bind users to arbitration clauses and class-action waivers. And sign-in wrap enforceability has split the circuits after Chabolla, Godun, and Dhruva.

Get notice or assent wrong and the agreement is void. Specific visual and UX choices voided online agreements in 2025–2026. Emerging unconscionability doctrine now targets mass-arbitration management provisions. Revised AAA and JAMS rules, effective May 2025, reset the forum-selection calculus. And a banner that satisfies California AG privacy-consent guidance can still fail contract-formation doctrine.

Attendees walk out with working tools: the two-part conspicuous-notice/unambiguous-assent test, a case-law-derived drafting checklist for banners intended to compel arbitration, the eight-point consent-flow audit, and clause architecture for remediating deficient arbitration terms and selecting the right forum.

Format

CLE Credit

2h CLE Credits

Level

Intermediate

Length

2

Key topics that will be covered

01
Banners as Contracts
How the cookie banner functions as a contract-formation mechanism binding users to arbitration clauses and class-action waivers.
02
Two-Part Enforceability Test
How the conspicuous-notice/unambiguous-assent test decides whether a banner binds, and where the Ninth and Fourth Circuit standards diverge.
03
Sign-In Wrap Split
How Chabolla, Godun, and Dhruva reset sign-in wrap enforceability, and which circuit’s standard applies to your client’s site.
04
Visual and UX Standards
Which specific design elements caused courts to void online agreements in 2025–2026, and what survives scrutiny.
05
Dual-Use Banner Drafting
How to draft one banner that satisfies both California AG privacy-consent guidance and contractformation doctrine while avoiding common traps.
06
Audit, Remediate, Select
How to run the eight-point consent-flow audit, rework bellwether provisions and deficient clauses, and select a forum under the revised AAA and JAMS mass-arbitration rules.

Program schedule

clock 2:30 pm - 3:30 pm EST

Drafting the Cookie Banner That Forms a Binding Contract

This session examines how cookie banners are being deployed as contract-formation mechanisms that bind users to arbitration clauses and class-action waivers, drawing on the 2025–2026 wave of Ninth Circuit and district court decisions. Attorneys will learn the two-part conspicuous-notice/unambiguous-assent test, the specific visual and UX design elements courts have accepted or rejected, and the dual-use tension between privacy-consent compliance and enforceable contract formation. By the end of this session, attendees will be able to evaluate an existing cookie banner for enforceability risk and apply a case-law-derived drafting checklist to banners intended to compel arbitration.

Joshua M. SteinJoshua M. Stein
clock 3:40 pm - 4:40 pm EST

Auditing Consent Flows and Rethinking the Consumer Arbitration Clause

This session equips attorneys to conduct a structured audit of existing consent flows and arbitration clauses considering the 2024–2025 circuit split on sign-in wrap enforceability, emerging unconscionability doctrine targeting mass-arbitration management provisions, and revised AAA and JAMS procedural rules effective May 2025. Attorneys will learn a concrete checklist for evaluating visual conspicuousness, assent mechanisms, and arbitration clause architecture across jurisdictions. By the end of the session, attendees will be able to identify high-risk consent-flow elements, remediate deficient arbitration clauses, and select an arbitration forum with full awareness of the cost and procedural consequences of that choice.

Joshua M. SteinJoshua M. Stein
Joshua M. Stein

Joshua M. Stein

Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

Joshua M. Stein

Joshua M. Stein

Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

Joshua M. Stein is a partner in the San Francisco office of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, where he first-chairs technology and platform litigation. His practice spans artificial intelligence, copyright, trademarks and trade secrets, commercial disputes, appellate matters, crisis management, and international arbitration. He is a member of the firm’s teams litigating the AI copyright cases against Meta and OpenAI, has led litigation against Meta over Instagram addiction, and serves as hiring partner for the San Francisco office.

Education & Credentials

Joshua earned his J.D., cum laude, from Yale Law School, where he served as Articles Editor of the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities and as Faculty Diversity Co-Chair of the Latino Law Students Association. He holds a Ph.D. in U.S. History from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a B.A., cum laude, in History and English from Yale University. He is admitted to practice in California and clerked for the Hon. Ferdinand F. Fernandez of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Recognition & Leadership

Joshua has been named among the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers. He serves as hiring partner for Boies Schiller Flexner’s San Francisco office, where he recruits and mentors the firm’s litigation talent, and he was recently appointed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to represent an immigration client on appeal.

Professional Involvement

Joshua is a member of the Hispanic National Bar Association. A dual citizen of the United States and Ecuador who is fluent in Spanish, he handles cross-border matters and appears in international forums, including service on the team litigating a landmark case against FIFA before a human rights tribunal on behalf of women footballers seeking equal treatment, and work on a crisis team addressing a diplomatic dispute between sovereigns. Before entering practice, he taught U.S. history at Yale, UCLA, CUNY, and The New School, and his published work on legal history, criminal justice, and constitutional law has been frequently cited.

Experience

Joshua’s representative matters include the AI copyright actions against Meta and OpenAI; litigation against Meta concerning Instagram addiction; a copyright defense victory for Warner Bros. in the California Court of Appeal concerning the film The Judge; the defense of Giphy in an intellectual property dispute; offensive discovery in the Waymo v. Uber trade secrets case; preparation for oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com; defense preparation in a New York Martin Act suit; and Ninth Circuit post-arbitration litigation, a Bivens claim, and a discrimination suit against a university system. In-house, he served as litigation counsel at Twitter, where he oversaw the company’s successful certiorari petition in Taamneh v. Twitter before the U.S. Supreme Court, and as Director of Litigation and Operations at Clipboard Health, where he managed class actions, investigations, and crisis response.
Joshua M. Stein

Joshua M. Stein

Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

Joshua M. Stein is a partner in the San Francisco office of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, where he first-chairs technology and platform litigation. His practice spans artificial intelligence, copyright, trademarks and trade secrets, commercial disputes, appellate matters, crisis management, and international arbitration. He is a member of the firm’s teams litigating the AI copyright cases against Meta and OpenAI, has led litigation against Meta over Instagram addiction, and serves as hiring partner for the San Francisco office.

Education & Credentials

Joshua earned his J.D., cum laude, from Yale Law School, where he served as Articles Editor of the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities and as Faculty Diversity Co-Chair of the Latino Law Students Association. He holds a Ph.D. in U.S. History from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a B.A., cum laude, in History and English from Yale University. He is admitted to practice in California and clerked for the Hon. Ferdinand F. Fernandez of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Recognition & Leadership

Joshua has been named among the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers. He serves as hiring partner for Boies Schiller Flexner’s San Francisco office, where he recruits and mentors the firm’s litigation talent, and he was recently appointed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to represent an immigration client on appeal.

Professional Involvement

Joshua is a member of the Hispanic National Bar Association. A dual citizen of the United States and Ecuador who is fluent in Spanish, he handles cross-border matters and appears in international forums, including service on the team litigating a landmark case against FIFA before a human rights tribunal on behalf of women footballers seeking equal treatment, and work on a crisis team addressing a diplomatic dispute between sovereigns. Before entering practice, he taught U.S. history at Yale, UCLA, CUNY, and The New School, and his published work on legal history, criminal justice, and constitutional law has been frequently cited.

Experience

Joshua’s representative matters include the AI copyright actions against Meta and OpenAI; litigation against Meta concerning Instagram addiction; a copyright defense victory for Warner Bros. in the California Court of Appeal concerning the film The Judge; the defense of Giphy in an intellectual property dispute; offensive discovery in the Waymo v. Uber trade secrets case; preparation for oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com; defense preparation in a New York Martin Act suit; and Ninth Circuit post-arbitration litigation, a Bivens claim, and a discrimination suit against a university system. In-house, he served as litigation counsel at Twitter, where he oversaw the company’s successful certiorari petition in Taamneh v. Twitter before the U.S. Supreme Court, and as Director of Litigation and Operations at Clipboard Health, where he managed class actions, investigations, and crisis response.

Credits by state

AK2.0
AL2.0
AR2.0
AZ2.0
CA2.0
CO2.0
CT2.0
DC2.0
DE2.0
FL2.0
GA2.0
HI2.0
IA2.0
ID2.0
IL2.0
IN2.0
KS2.0
KY2.0
LA2.0
MA2.0
MD2.0
ME2.0
MI2.0
MN2.0
MO2.4
MS2.0
MT2.0
NC2.0
ND2.0
NE2.0
NH120.0
NJ2.0
NM2.0
NV2.0
NY2.0
OH2.0
OK2.5
OR2.0
PA2.0
RI2.5
SC2.0
SD2.0
TN2.0
TX2.0
UT2.0
VA2.0
VT2.0
WA2.0
WI2.0
WV2.4
WY2.0

1000+

Live stream programs

24/7

Access to live webinars & recordings

70,000+

Trusted by Legal Professionals

1000+

Live stream programs

24/7

Access to live webinars & recordings

70,000+

Trusted by Legal Professionals

1000+

Live stream programs

24/7

Access to live webinars & recordings

10,000+

Trusted by Legal Professionals

1000+

Live stream programs

24/7

Access to live webinars & recordings

70,000+

Trusted by Legal Professionals

MCLE Credits

Alabama
Approved
Alaska
Approved
Arizona
Approved
Arkansas
Approved
California
Approved
Colorado
Pending
Connecticut
Approved
Delaware
Pending
District of Columbia
No Required
Florida
Approved
Georgia
Approved
Hawaii
Approved
Idaho
Pending
Illinois
Pending
Indiana
Pending
Iowa
Pending
Kansas
Pending
Kentucky
Pending
Louisiana
Pending
Maine
Pending
Maryland
No Required
Massachusetts
No Required
Michigan
No Required
Minnesota
Pending
Mississippi
Pending
Missouri
Approved
Montana
Pending
Nebraska
Pending
Nevada
Pending
New Hampshire
Approved
New Jersey
Approved
New Mexico
Approved
New York
Approved
North Carolina
Pending
North Dakota
Approved
Ohio
Approved
Oklahoma
Pending
Oregon
Pending
Pennsylvania
Approved
Rhode Island
Pending
South Carolina
Pending
South Dakota
No Required
Tennessee
Approved
Texas
Approved
Utah
Pending
Vermont
Approved
Virginia
Not Eligible
Washington
Approved
West Virginia
Pending
Wisconsin
Pending
Wyoming
Pending

Alabama

Requirements

The Alabama State Bar MCLE Commission requires attorneys to complete 12 credits, including 1 ethics, by December 31 of each year. All credits must be reported by February 15 of the following year. A maximum of 12 credits, including 1 ethics credit, may be carried over for 1 year only.  

Formats

  • Attorneys can earn unlimited “live” credit through live seminars, live webcasts, and co-sponsored locations with MyLAWCLE-Alabama approved programs
  • Attorneys are limited to 6 credits per compliance period of “online” programs through MyLAwCLE On-Demand programs