MICHAEL DAHDAH v. ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC - Articles

All Content

MICHAEL DAHDAH v. ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC

Posted by: Julia Wilburn on Jan 28, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: William M. Jay, GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: James S. Wertheim, THE HQ FIRM, P.C., West Jordan, Utah, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: William M. Jay, W. Kyle Tayman, Benjamin Hayes, GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Washington, D.C., Brooks R. Brown, GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: James S. Wertheim, THE HQ FIRM, P.C., West Jordan, Utah, for Appellee.

Judge(s): GIBBONS, WHITE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint

This case requires us to consider what actions qualify as valid “offers” and “acceptances” to form contracts in the online world. Websites often tell consumers that they will “agree to” or “accept” various contractual terms (including arbitration provisions) by engaging in certain conduct, such as clicking a button or registering an account. If consumers take the specified action, when do these online proposals create binding contracts to arbitrate? We must consider that question under California contract law. LowerMyBills.com refers internet users who are interested in refinancing their home mortgages to affiliated lending partners, including Rocket Mortgage. The website tells users that they will agree to its hyperlinked “Terms of Use”—including a mandatory arbitration provision—if they click on a particular button. Michael Dahdah visited this website three times, inputted his information, and clicked the critical buttons. LowerMyBills referred him to Rocket. When Dahdah later received calls from Rocket that he did not want, he sued the company in federal court. Rocket responded by invoking LowerMyBills’ arbitration provision. But the district court held that Dahdah’s “click” did not create an enforceable agreement. We disagree. Under the significant body of circuit precedent interpreting California law, LowerMyBills gave Dahdah sufficiently conspicuous notice that he would accept the proposed terms by clicking the button. So his decision to take this action qualified as a valid “acceptance” of LowerMyBills’ “offer” to contract. The district court thus should have granted Rocket’s motion to compel arbitration. We reverse.

Attachments: