Court rejects Zeus Networks’ attempt to force consumer into arbitration based on an inconspicuous website hyperlink. The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi recently secured a significant victory for consumers in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
In Tejon v. Zeus Networks, LLC, No. 24-11114, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Zeus Networks’ attempt to force our client, Roger Tejon, into arbitration.
In a published 2–1 decision issued May 1, 2026, the court found that Zeus did not provide sufficient notice of the terms of service containing its arbitration provision. As a result, Mr. Tejon’s proposed class action can continue in court rather than being forced into arbitration based on a terms-of-service hyperlink that the court found was not sufficiently conspicuous.
For our firm, the decision represents an important appellate victory and a significant development in the fight to protect consumers’ ability to hold corporations accountable.
The underlying lawsuit involves allegations that Zeus Networks shared a subscriber’s viewing history and personally identifiable information with a social-media company without consent, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
After the lawsuit was filed, Zeus argued that Mr. Tejon had agreed to arbitrate his claims through the company’s online terms of service.
Zeus asked the court to force Mr. Tejon out of court and into arbitration.
We challenged that argument.
The issue before the Eleventh Circuit was not whether the alleged privacy violations occurred. Instead, the court had to determine whether Zeus had actually established that Mr. Tejon agreed to its terms of service, including the arbitration provision.
The court ultimately agreed with our position.
At the center of the dispute was the way Zeus presented its terms of service on its website.
Zeus relied on what is commonly called a “browsewrap” agreement. Rather than requiring the consumer to affirmatively acknowledge the terms, the website included a hyperlink leading to them.
Zeus argued that the hyperlink provided sufficient notice.
The Eleventh Circuit disagreed.
The court explained that simply having terms available somewhere on a website does not automatically mean a consumer has agreed to them. Instead, courts must look at the website as a whole and determine whether the terms were presented in a way that would give a reasonably prudent internet user adequate notice.
That includes looking at factors such as:
In Zeus’s case, the court found that the terms-of-service link was a small, gray hyperlink located below large red subscription buttons and surrounded by other information.
The fact that a consumer technically could see the link was not enough.
The court found that the presentation did not provide adequate notice that the consumer was agreeing to an arbitration provision.
Arbitration provisions are everywhere.
Consumers encounter them when signing up for streaming services, purchasing products, creating online accounts, subscribing to services and interacting with companies online.
Many of these agreements also contain class-action waivers. That means a consumer may be required to pursue a claim individually rather than joining with other consumers who were allegedly harmed in the same way.
For consumers, that can make a major difference.
A company may be able to avoid having a dispute heard by a jury or a court if a valid arbitration agreement exists. But Tejon reinforces that there is an important question that comes first:
If the answer is no, a company may not be able to use that provision to prevent the consumer from pursuing a case in court.
The Eleventh Circuit did not say that companies are prohibited from using hyperlinks to their terms and conditions.
It also did not create a specific formula that every website must follow.
Instead, the court focused on whether the overall presentation of the terms provided reasonable notice.
That distinction matters.
A corporation cannot necessarily point to a terms-of-service link buried somewhere on a webpage and later argue that every consumer who used the website automatically agreed to everything contained behind that link.
As the court explained, a company seeking to enforce an arbitration clause through a browsewrap agreement must prominently display the hyperlink leading to that clause.
In this case, Zeus did not do enough.
Although Tejon arose from allegations involving consumer privacy, the court’s decision focused on contract formation and the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.
That means the reasoning could have implications in other types of consumer disputes involving online agreements.
Consumers dealing with issues involving online purchases, subscriptions, marketing programs, privacy violations or improper charges may also encounter arbitration provisions in a company’s terms of service.
When a corporation attempts to use those terms to force a consumer into arbitration, the circumstances surrounding the consumer’s agreement can matter.
The Tejon decision provides consumers with another important argument when the company cannot establish that the consumer received adequate notice of the arbitration provision.
The result in Tejon is particularly important because the arbitration provision at issue could have prevented Mr. Tejon from pursuing his claims in court and potentially participating in a class action.
Our firm successfully challenged that effort.
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision preserves Mr. Tejon’s opportunity to pursue his proposed class action in court.
That does not mean the court has ruled on the ultimate merits of the underlying privacy claims, and it does not guarantee class certification or a recovery. Those issues will be addressed separately.
But before a consumer can be forced into arbitration, the company seeking to enforce the agreement must first establish that the consumer actually agreed to it.
In Tejon, Zeus could not meet that burden.
The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi is proud to have secured this published appellate victory on behalf of Mr. Tejon.
The decision not only allows our client to continue pursuing his claims in court, but also provides important guidance for consumers who find themselves facing arbitration provisions contained within online terms of service.
As Jibrael S. Hindi explains:
“A company should not be able to turn an inconspicuous hyperlink into a barrier to accountability. This ruling gives consumers a stronger foundation to challenge online arbitration terms and preserve the opportunity to pursue their claims together in court.”
The Tejon v. Zeus Networks decision is an important reminder that corporations cannot simply bury significant contractual provisions in the fine print of a website and assume consumers are bound by them.
The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi will continue to fight for consumers and hold corporations accountable when they cross the line.
Tejon v. Zeus Networks, LLC, No. 24-11114 (11th Cir. May 1, 2026). The appellate decision addressed the arbitration issue and did not decide the ultimate merits of the underlying privacy allegations.