How the FAA Helped Carry the Day on a “Click-to-Accept” Arbitration Clause
Online lead-generation and referral platforms sit at the center of countless consumer disputes, especially those that follow unwanted marketing calls and texts. In Dahdah v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court and compelled arbitration, holding that the plaintiff’s repeated “Calculate” clicks on LowerMyBills.com formed an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. The opinion is a modern reminder that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does more than express a general preference for arbitration. It can materially shape the outcome by (1) requiring ordinary contract principles (not anti-arbitration special rules) and (2) supplying procedural “gap-fillers” when an arbitration clause is light on details.
The dispute in plain English
Michael Dahdah used his phone to visit LowerMyBills.com multiple times while exploring mortgage refinancing options. On key pages, the site displayed a prominent button (e.g., “Calculate” / “Calculate your FREE results”) and, in smaller text beneath, language stating that by clicking the button, the user consents to hyperlinked terms, including Terms of Use that contained an arbitration provision. The referral process ultimately matched Dahdah to Rocket Mortgage.
Later, Dahdah sued Rocket in federal court under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), alleging unwanted calls, including calls to a Do Not Call registered number and calls at improper hours. Rocket moved to compel arbitration, relying on the Terms of Use Dahdah allegedly accepted through his clicks. The district court denied arbitration, but the Sixth Circuit reversed and ordered arbitration.
Where the FAA showed up — and why it mattered
1) FAA § 2 sets the baseline rule: arbitration agreements are enforced like other contracts
The Sixth Circuit framed the analysis through FAA § 2, which makes arbitration agreements “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable” except on general contract grounds (fraud, duress, unconscionability, lack of assent, etc.). The point is not that arbitration clauses always win, but that courts cannot apply a “heightened” or arbitration-specific skepticism to formation issues.
That FAA baseline guided the court’s structure:
State contract law supplies the formation rules (here, California law, by agreement of the parties).
The FAA prevents courts from treating arbitration provisions as second-class.
The court therefore asked a familiar contract question: Did the user receive reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms, and did the user take the action the site identified as acceptance?
2) The FAA did not displace state formation law — but it disciplined the analysis
A key nuance: the court did not invent a federal “internet contract” rule. It applied California contract principles to decide offer and acceptance, emphasizing an objective test of assent (outward manifestations, not subjective intent). Still, the FAA’s “equal-footing” mandate helps keep the inquiry focused on ordinary contract formation rather than a judicial instinct to demand extra steps simply because arbitration is involved.
Practically, this matters in “hybrid” online designs. Many consumer-facing websites are neither classic clickwrap (“I agree”) nor pure browsewrap (terms tucked somewhere with a passive “use = consent” statement). They use what courts often call sign-in wrap / hybrid flows: a call-to-action button, with a nearby disclosure that clicking constitutes acceptance of hyperlinked terms.
In Dahdah, the Sixth Circuit treated LowerMyBills’ pages as a hybrid offer and applied a “totality of the circumstances” conspicuousness analysis (page clutter, proximity to the button, font and hyperlink styling, and whether a user would expect ongoing relationship). It found the notice sufficient, especially because the Terms of Use link was visually highlighted and placed directly below the action button on the relevant pages.
3) FAA gap-filling: the statute can save “detail-free” arbitration clauses
One of Dahdah’s notable arguments was that the Terms of Use were missing too many “material” arbitration details (which forum, how many arbitrators, selection method, etc.). The Sixth Circuit rejected that challenge, relying on a practical point: the FAA itself fills many procedural gaps.
The agreement provided that proceedings would be “governed by the FAA,” and the court emphasized 9 U.S.C. § 5 — which allows a court to appoint an arbitrator when the agreement provides no method, and supplies default mechanisms that prevent an otherwise valid arbitration agreement from failing for lack of administrative detail.
This is a major FAA-driven takeaway for litigators and drafters:
A clause that is broad and enforceable on formation grounds is less likely to be invalidated merely because it is not “procedurally complete.”
FAA § 5 (and related federal doctrine) can keep the arbitration on track even where the contract is sparse.
4) Delegation language + FAA doctrine shifted “scope” fights away from the court
The Terms of Use contained delegation language stating that the arbitrator decides “the issue of arbitrability” and that any dispute about whether a matter is arbitrable shall be determined by the arbitrator, not the court. The Sixth Circuit treated this as dispositive of certain timing and termination arguments Dahdah raised (e.g., whether calls a year later fell within the clause, or whether consent allegedly “expired”). Those issues, the court said, were for the arbitrator to decide given the delegation clause.
This is another FAA-adjacent feature with real bite in motion practice: when delegation is clear, courts typically must enforce it, even if the court believes the claim is outside the clause. Dahdah underscores how quickly a case can move from “does this cover calls made later?” to “that question goes to the arbitrator.”
Why this matters to attorneys counseling businesses, platforms, and lenders
A. For companies relying on referral sites or multi-party marketing ecosystems
Dahdah is a favorable data point for defendants facing TCPA and marketing-contact claims where the consumer’s interaction began on a third-party platform:
If the notice is reasonably conspicuous and the user takes the described acceptance action, courts may enforce arbitration even when the defendant is an affiliate or related entity referenced by the clause.
The FAA helps prevent formation analysis from sliding into arbitration-specific strictness.
Even if the clause is thin on procedure, FAA gap-filling can preserve enforceability.
B. For plaintiffs assessing whether arbitration can be avoided
The opinion also helps plaintiffs’ counsel spot the real pressure points:
Formation challenges will often rise or fall on screen design evidence: placement, scroll behavior, visibility on mobile, color contrast, and clutter.
Arguments that the consumer did not “knowingly” agree will often fail under objective contract tests.
If there is a clear delegation clause, “scope” arguments may be punted to the arbitrator.
Drafting and litigation takeaways
Put the disclosure directly adjacent to the button that constitutes acceptance.
Use clear “By clicking…” language identifying the acceptance action.
Make links look like links (color contrast matters).
Consider belt-and-suspenders repetition across steps, as the court found helpful.
If relying on a broad arbitration agreement, consider explicitly referencing the FAA and including delegation language if the goal is to push scope disputes to the arbitrator.
How Nationwide ADR fits into this conversation
When disputes arise over enforceability, scope, delegation, and procedure, parties often need a neutral who can handle both the contract-law texture and the case-management realities of modern, document-heavy disputes. Nationwide ADR focuses on arbitration and mediation for demanding business, tort, consumer, and employment matters, and also provides Early Dispute Resolution, Early Neutral Evaluation, Mock Trials, Mini Trials, and Special Master services where a case benefits from structured momentum toward resolution.
If counsel are evaluating whether a matter should be arbitrated, mediated, or positioned for early resolution, Nationwide ADR can help design a process that is efficient, fair, and built to withstand the same real-world friction points highlighted in decisions like Dahdah.