When You Reject Cookies, You Might Be Agreeing to Arbitration-Alba v. Harbor Freight - Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Menu<br>Biography
Academic Materials
Writing
Presentations
Resources
Courses
Advertising & Marketing Law
Contract Law
Copyright Law
Internet Law
IP Survey
Legal Ethics
Contact
Blogs
Tertium Quid Blog
Eric Goldman’s Personal Blog
About the Blogger
Browse: Home<br>" 2026<br>" July<br>" When You Reject Cookies, You Might Be Agreeing to Arbitration–Alba v. Harbor Freight
When You Reject Cookies, You Might Be Agreeing to Arbitration–Alba v. Harbor Freight
July 29, 2026 · by Eric Goldman · in E-Commerce, Licensing/Contracts
Starting in 2024, Harbor Freight deployed the following cookie banner:
The court accepts Harbor Freight’s claim that the "2024 Cookie Banner was displayed on each page on the Website until the user interacted with it, even if the user had previously visited the Website and interacted with the prior cookie banner."
In 2025, Harbor Freight added an arbitration clause to the TCU. The TCU also contains a class action waiver.
The named plaintiff, Alba, says he visited the website at least once a year since 2020, including after the arbitration clause was added to the TCU. Alba allegedly selected the "Reject All Cookies" button.
What Terms Apply
The court accepts Harbor Freight’s evidence of its user interface:
Harbor Freight has satisfied its burden of proof and demonstrated that Alba was shown the 2024 Cookie Banner. It is undisputed that Alba visited the Website as recently as October 2025. Harbor Freight’s unrebutted evidence that the 2024 Cookie Banner was shown to all users following October 31, 2024, is therefore sufficient to demonstrate that Alba must have been shown the revised banner during his recent visits to the Website….
Alba did not submit a declaration or any other evidence denying that the Website displayed the 2024 Cookie Banner when he visited it in 2025
Alba pointed to an article that says that normally, in the EU, a website doesn’t redisplay the cookie banner to consumers who have already made a selection. The court says this article doesn’t raise any questions about the activities taking place in the US.
Formation
Turning to formation, the court characterizes the cookie banner as a "sign-in-wrap," which takes us to the now-familiar Chabolla considerations.
Transaction Context. Favors Alba, because "simply browsing a website is insufficient to put the user on heightened notice to anticipate terms of service."
Visual Design. The court says the offer notice was reasonably conspicuous:
First, the font size used for the advisory paragraph, hyperlinked Terms and Conditions, and buttons was the same. Second, the advisory paragraph displayed in black text against a white background, whereas the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy were each bolded, underlined, and in red font. Thus, the Terms and Conditions “stood out from the surrounding text to indicate it was clickable.” Third, the hyperlink to the Terms and Conditions was directly to the left of the three buttons and contained within the pop-up banner, meaning that a Website user could not click on any of the buttons without also seeing the Terms and Conditions displayed on their screen. Finally, there was nothing else cluttering the cookie banner, and the advisory paragraph expressly notified users that “[b]y clicking ‘Accept All Cookies,’ ‘Reject All Cookies,’ ‘Cookie Settings,’ or continuing to browse our website, you acknowledge and agree to our Terms and Conditions of Use.”
A few things:
The cookie banner excerpt was presented in isolation, not in the context of the entire page. I find these kinds of excerpts unhelpful and maybe misleading. Is the offer conspicuous when looking at the whole page?
Even in the excerpt, the font is small. It’s blurry in the screenshot I present above (taken from the court opinion).
Although there isn’t a ton of text, the consumer would have to wade through the cookie discussions to see that the decision to proceed has implications far beyond cookies.
The court distinguishes Chabolla because, in that case, the offer was below the acceptance button such that someone might not look there (here, the text is to the left of the acceptance button). The court says it doesn’t matter that the offer disclosure was at the end of the paragraph block because the TCU links were "bolded, underlined, and in red font, meaning they stood out even without reading the entire paragraph." Alba also complained that the links to the TCU and privacy policy were "mashed together," but the court says consumers would recognize the space between them and, either way, still see the TCU reference.
Assent. Alba didn’t challenge assent separately from the disclosure visbility. But I’m stuck on this. Harbor Freight claimed that taking ANY of the following actions was assent: "clicking ‘Accept All Cookies,’ ‘Reject All Cookies,’...