{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:93-f-4th-1014","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:93-f-4th-1014)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-21","fingerprint":"ewai:us:7dc9fb","proof":"sha256:7180be25c0bfb76f57dac74c86361649abbe563c06dcc0807db9d175da2ddfce","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:93-f-4th-1014","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"In the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"For the Seventh Circuit","paragraphs":["para_4"]},{"title":"No. 22-2813","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"ALEX COATNEY, individually and on behalf of similarly","paragraphs":["para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12"]},{"title":"Appeal from the United States District Court for the","paragraphs":["para_14","para_15","para_16"]},{"title":"ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 2023 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 2024","paragraphs":["para_18","para_19"]},{"title":"BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Ancestry.com sells genealogy","paragraphs":["para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26"]},{"title":"2 No. 22-2813","paragraphs":["para_28","para_29"]},{"title":"Sitting in diversity and applying Illinois law, the district","paragraphs":["para_31","para_32","para_33"]},{"title":"I. Background","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Ancestry.com DNA, LLC is a genealogy and consumer","paragraphs":["para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40"]},{"title":"Individuals who purchase and activate Ancestry DNA test","paragraphs":["para_42","para_43"]},{"title":"However, minors thirteen to eighteen years old may still use","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Ancestry’s DNA service. A parent or legal guardian may acti-","paragraphs":["para_46","para_47"]},{"title":"Between 2016 and 2019, guardians purchased and acti-","paragraphs":["para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53"]},{"title":"1 Genomics is a field of biology focused on studying all the DNA of","paragraphs":["para_55","para_56"]},{"title":"No. 22-2813 3","paragraphs":["para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64"]},{"title":"The DNA Processing Consent lists several provisions re-","paragraphs":["para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77"]},{"title":"The Terms, in each iteration, contain a dispute resolution","paragraphs":["para_79","para_80","para_81"]},{"title":"Terms constitutes acceptance of that change. The Terms also","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"2 H.S.’s and B.H.’s guardian—Donna Roberts—had previously cre-","paragraphs":["para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87"]},{"title":"4 No. 22-2813","paragraphs":["para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92"]},{"title":"DNA sample, genetic testing of your DNA sam-","paragraphs":["para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100"]},{"title":"As the Terms explain, “[t]he purpose of the DNA Services is","paragraphs":["para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105"]},{"title":"Plaintiffs allege they did not, and also that they did not create","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Ancestry accounts. Nor did plaintiffs ever access their guard-","paragraphs":["para_108","para_109"]},{"title":"In 2020, Blackstone, Inc. acquired Ancestry. Plaintiffs sued","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Ancestry in federal court, claiming that the acquisition re-","paragraphs":["para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115"]},{"title":"Plaintiffs filed a purported class action under the Class Action","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Fairness Act, and the district court had diversity jurisdiction","paragraphs":["para_118"]},{"title":"No. 22-2813 5","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Under the Terms’ dispute resolution provisions, Ancestry","paragraphs":["para_121","para_122"]},{"title":"To that court, it was clear that Ancestry and plaintiffs’ guard-","paragraphs":["para_124","para_125"]},{"title":"First, the district court rejected Ancestry’s assertion that","paragraphs":["para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130"]},{"title":"Terms’ plain, unambiguous language to support that asser-","paragraphs":["para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136"]},{"title":"Second, the district court concluded that equitable princi-","paragraphs":["para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143"]},{"title":"Ancestry timely filed this interlocutory appeal. “Interloc-","paragraphs":["para_145","para_146","para_147"]},{"title":"6 No. 22-2813","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"II. Discussion","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Ancestry urges us to reverse the district court’s denial of","paragraphs":["para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158"]},{"title":"We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to","paragraphs":["para_160","para_161"]},{"title":"(7th Cir. 2021). The district court’s application of equitable","paragraphs":["para_163"]},{"title":"Before addressing Ancestry’s arguments, we review some","paragraphs":["para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168"]},{"title":"(citing 9 U.S.C. § 2). A court must compel arbitration under","paragraphs":["para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173"]},{"title":"Arbitration is contractual, and “[a] party cannot be","paragraphs":["para_175","para_176","para_177"]},{"title":"No. 22-2813 7","paragraphs":["para_179"]},{"title":"1054, 1059 (7th Cir. 2018). Whether an arbitration agreement","paragraphs":["para_181","para_182"]},{"title":"Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 631 (2009); Scheurer, 863 F.3d at 752. State","paragraphs":["para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189"]},{"title":"Illinois law governs, so we turn there for the specific legal","paragraphs":["para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198"]},{"title":"630, 637 (7th Cir. 2002). We deviate from those holdings only","paragraphs":["para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205"]},{"title":"A. Assent by Conduct","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Ancestry argues that “[t]he conduct of Plaintiffs’ guardi-","paragraphs":["para_208","para_209"]},{"title":"8 No. 22-2813","paragraphs":["para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215"]},{"title":"Looking to Illinois law, our analysis begins with the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Terms’ language, which we “endeavor to give … ‘its plain and","paragraphs":["para_218","para_219"]},{"title":"(quoting Gallagher v. Lenhart, 874 N.E.2d 43, 58 (Ill. 2007)). The","paragraphs":["para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226"]},{"title":"Plaintiffs are not express parties to the Terms. As shown in the","paragraphs":["para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231"]},{"title":"Ancestry’s only counter to the Terms’ plain language is an","paragraphs":["para_233","para_234"]},{"title":"2012). There, the father of a deceased sixteen-year-old girl","paragraphs":["para_236","para_237"]},{"title":"The minor and her mother signed two contracts with the de-","paragraphs":["para_239","para_240","para_241"]},{"title":"No. 22-2813 9","paragraphs":["para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246"]},{"title":"Burns sued, and Wilderness Ventures moved to dismiss","paragraphs":["para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256"]},{"title":"Ancestry urges us to follow Burns, but we decline for two","paragraphs":["para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267"]},{"title":"Terms do not say plaintiffs’ guardians agreed to them “on be-","paragraphs":["para_269"]},{"title":"3 Because arbitration clauses are a type of forum selection clause, see","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Jackson v. Payday Fin., LLC, 764 F.3d 765, 773 (7th Cir. 2014), authorities","paragraphs":["para_272"]},{"title":"10 No. 22-2813","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Burns, the court ignored the decedent’s own signature. Id. at","paragraphs":["para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278"]},{"title":"Terms at all.4","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"4 When contending that the guardians’ conduct bound plaintiffs to the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Terms, Ancestry cites a smattering of cases not from Illinois or from out-","paragraphs":["para_282"]},{"title":"Two concerned arbitration clauses comparable to the forum selection","paragraphs":["para_284","para_285"]},{"title":"(“I, as parent or legal guardian of the below named minor, … agree, indi-","paragraphs":["para_287"]},{"title":"Cross v. Carnes, 724 N.E.2d 828, 831 (Oh. App. Ct. 1998) (noting that the","paragraphs":["para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296"]},{"title":"There, a mother purchased ski lift tickets and agreed to a forum selection","paragraphs":["para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306"]},{"title":"No. 22-2813 11","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"B. Closely Related and Third-Party Beneficiary","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Arguments","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Even if plaintiffs are not direct parties under the plain lan-","paragraphs":["para_311","para_312"]},{"title":"The company mounts these arguments from shaky legal","paragraphs":["para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317"]},{"title":"Ct. 2005); Ball Corp. v. Bohlin Bldg. Corp., 543 N.E.2d 106, 107","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(Ill. App. Ct. 1989); Midwest Concrete Prods. Co. v. La Salle Nat’l","paragraphs":["para_320"]},{"title":"JUR. 2d Contracts § 304, at 729–30 (1964)). That presumption is","paragraphs":["para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325"]},{"title":"App. Ct. 1991)). Showing that the “parties know, expect, or","paragraphs":["para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338"]},{"title":"12 No. 22-2813","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Importantly, the Terms exclude third-party beneficiaries:","paragraphs":["para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345"]},{"title":"N.E.3d 1187, 1194–95 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). But the only specific","paragraphs":["para_347"]},{"title":"Processing Consent. Most of that language, like most of the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Terms’ provisions, uses “you” and “your” to refer to the per-","paragraphs":["para_350","para_351"]},{"title":"Illinois’ strong presumption against conferring contrac-","paragraphs":["para_353"]},{"title":"Terms’ express prohibition, hobbles Ancestry’s position. The","paragraphs":["para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358"]},{"title":"A nonparty will be bound by a forum selection clause if","paragraphs":["para_360","para_361"]},{"title":"Hugel v. Corp. of Lloyd’s, 999 F.2d 206, 209 (7th Cir. 1993) (quo-","paragraphs":["para_363"]},{"title":"17 N.E.3d 171, 183 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (adopting Hugel’s","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"5 In Hugel, we concluded that third-party beneficiary status would sat-","paragraphs":["para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369"]},{"title":"No. 22-2813 13","paragraphs":["para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375"]},{"title":"Ancestry asks us to apply Hugel and Solargenix to reverse","paragraphs":["para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383"]},{"title":"But Hugel and Solargenix do not extend as far as Ancestry","paragraphs":["para_385","para_386","para_387"]},{"title":"Lloyd’s attempted to enforce a forum selection clause fixing","paragraphs":["para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394"]},{"title":"Hugel and Lloyd’s. Id. at 210. Hugel was president and chair-","paragraphs":["para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399"]},{"title":"Solargenix required an Illinois state court to decide","paragraphs":["para_401"]},{"title":"14 No. 22-2813","paragraphs":["para_403","para_404","para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415"]},{"title":"Hugel and Solargenix present two circumstances in which","paragraphs":["para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421","para_422"]},{"title":"Neither scenario applies to plaintiffs. Though a special re-","paragraphs":["para_424","para_425","para_426"]},{"title":"Further, neither plaintiffs nor their guardians negotiated the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Terms. Indeed, there is no evidence plaintiffs even knew the","paragraphs":["para_429"]},{"title":"No. 22-2813 15","paragraphs":["para_431","para_432"]},{"title":"Ancestry asserts plaintiffs benefited from the Terms such","paragraphs":["para_434","para_435","para_436","para_437","para_438","para_439"]},{"title":"Consent, stating Ancestry would “[u]se your child’s DNA","paragraphs":["para_441","para_442"]},{"title":"This court’s decision in Sosa is instructive in evaluating","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Ancestry’s argument. There, a non-signatory sought to en-","paragraphs":["para_445"]},{"title":"Onfido, alleging that the company used technology without","paragraphs":["para_447","para_448"]},{"title":"Sosa’s interaction with Onfido’s software, TruYou, came","paragraphs":["para_450","para_451"]},{"title":"Sosa registered with OfferUp and used its app, he agreed to","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"OfferUp’s Terms of Service and a mandatory arbitration pro-","paragraphs":["para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457"]},{"title":"In Sosa, we rejected Onfido’s argument that it qualified as","paragraphs":["para_459","para_460","para_461"]},{"title":"16 No. 22-2813","paragraphs":["para_463","para_464","para_465","para_466","para_467","para_468","para_469","para_470"]},{"title":"Terms of Service, “[r]ead as a whole … neither provide any","paragraphs":["para_472","para_473"]},{"title":"As with the terms of service in Sosa, the Terms here do not","paragraphs":["para_475","para_476"]},{"title":"Sosa. The DNA Processing Consent, incorporated into the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Terms, contemplates that consent to Ancestry’s processing","paragraphs":["para_479","para_480","para_481","para_482","para_483","para_484","para_485","para_486","para_487"]},{"title":"But nothing in the DNA Processing Consent says the Terms","paragraphs":["para_489"]},{"title":"Terms to minors is as possible subjects from whom saliva","paragraphs":["para_491"]},{"title":"No. 22-2813 17","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Additionally, the Terms’ arbitration provision did not in-","paragraphs":["para_494","para_495","para_496","para_497","para_498","para_499"]},{"title":"Ct. 1992). The Illinois Appellate Court ruled that the third-","paragraphs":["para_501","para_502","para_503","para_504","para_505","para_506","para_507"]},{"title":"Here, the Terms’ arbitration provision does not contain","paragraphs":["para_509","para_510","para_511","para_512","para_513","para_514","para_515","para_516","para_517","para_518","para_519","para_520","para_521"]},{"title":"18 No. 22-2813","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"C. Direct Benefits Estoppel","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Ancestry offers one other theory to rebut the presumption","paragraphs":["para_525","para_526","para_527","para_528","para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534"]},{"title":"Plaintiffs sought when they ‘discussed the DNA test … and","paragraphs":["para_536"]},{"title":"Ancestry, this benefit to plaintiffs flows directly from the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Terms containing the arbitration provision, “because Ances-","paragraphs":["para_539","para_540","para_541","para_542"]},{"title":"Terms: genetic analysis conducted by Ancestry. This benefit","paragraphs":["para_544","para_545"]},{"title":"Cir. 2018). There is no direct benefit here, plaintiffs argue, be-","paragraphs":["para_547","para_548","para_549","para_550"]},{"title":"Authority applying direct benefits estoppel under Illinois","paragraphs":["para_552","para_553"]},{"title":"No. 22-2813 19","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Inc., No. 5-21-0413, 2022 WL 1197374 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022), nor","paragraphs":["para_556"]},{"title":"Ct. 2023), applied direct benefits estoppel to bind a non-","paragraphs":["para_558","para_559","para_560","para_561","para_562"]},{"title":"Under direct benefits estoppel, “[a] nonsignatory party is","paragraphs":["para_564","para_565"]},{"title":"Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 417 F.3d at 688; A.D., 885 F.3d at 1064. The","paragraphs":["para_567","para_568","para_569","para_570","para_571","para_572"]},{"title":"Everett concerned “whether an owner-operator of a fran-","paragraphs":["para_574","para_575","para_576","para_577"]},{"title":"(“EAGB”), entered into a franchise agreement containing an","paragraphs":["para_579","para_580","para_581","para_582","para_583","para_584","para_585"]},{"title":"20 No. 22-2813","paragraphs":["para_587","para_588"]},{"title":"When PDRI discovered this, it sought to compel","paragraphs":["para_590","para_591","para_592","para_593","para_594","para_595","para_596","para_597"]},{"title":"Ms. Everett received from the franchise agreement was","paragraphs":["para_599"]},{"title":"EAGB and her relationship to Mr. Everett, but not to her","paragraphs":["para_601"]},{"title":"This court reversed. Id. at 385. “Ms. Everett was not merely","paragraphs":["para_603","para_604","para_605"]},{"title":"Ms. Everett received the same benefits as her husband, “in-","paragraphs":["para_607","para_608","para_609","para_610","para_611","para_612"]},{"title":"Everett’s ownership interest in EAGB was itself a direct ben-","paragraphs":["para_614","para_615"]},{"title":"In sum, Ms. Everett received direct benefits from the fran-","paragraphs":["para_617"]},{"title":"No. 22-2813 21","paragraphs":["para_619","para_620"]},{"title":"PDRI. These were not potential benefits; Ms. Everett held and","paragraphs":["para_622"]},{"title":"Here, the benefit plaintiffs received is not as direct as the","paragraphs":["para_624","para_625","para_626","para_627"]},{"title":"DNA. And, as we noted above in our discussion of Ancestry’s","paragraphs":["para_629","para_630"]},{"title":"A.D. is closer to this case. It concerned a minor’s putative","paragraphs":["para_632","para_633","para_634","para_635","para_636","para_637","para_638","para_639","para_640","para_641"]},{"title":"6 Everett was a diversity case applying Wisconsin, not Illinois, law. Its","paragraphs":["para_643","para_644","para_645"]},{"title":"417 F.3d at 688; Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"773, 778–80 (2d Cir. 1995); Blaustein v. Huete, 449 F. App’x 347, 350–51 (5th","paragraphs":["para_648"]},{"title":"22 No. 22-2813","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"In concluding that A.D. was not bound by the arbitration","paragraphs":["para_651","para_652","para_653","para_654","para_655","para_656","para_657","para_658","para_659","para_660"]},{"title":"Id. We concluded that estoppel did not apply to bind A.D. to","paragraphs":["para_662","para_663"]},{"title":"The benefit plaintiffs received here is more direct than the","paragraphs":["para_665","para_666","para_667","para_668","para_669","para_670","para_671","para_672","para_673","para_674","para_675"]},{"title":"This makes the benefit similar to the benefit in A.D., and, as","paragraphs":["para_677","para_678","para_679","para_680"]},{"title":"No. 22-2813 23","paragraphs":["para_682","para_683","para_684","para_685","para_686"]},{"title":"Two more recent Illinois cases show the uphill climb An-","paragraphs":["para_688"]},{"title":"In Snyder, the plaintiff purchased a truck from Jack","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Schmitt Ford, executing an Installment Loan Contract con-","paragraphs":["para_691","para_692","para_693","para_694","para_695","para_696"]},{"title":"Snyder’s claims, but not his wife’s claims, based on her non-","paragraphs":["para_698"]},{"title":"On its cross-appeal, Jack Schmitt Ford argued that estop-","paragraphs":["para_700","para_701","para_702"]},{"title":"The court recognized that courts (albeit not in Illinois) have","paragraphs":["para_704","para_705","para_706"]},{"title":"Maschinen & Anlagen GMBH, 206 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2000) and","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2005)). And","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Jack Schmitt Ford could not show that Snyder’s wife was re-","paragraphs":["para_710","para_711","para_712"]},{"title":"24 No. 22-2813","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The Illinois Appellate Court also noted that a direct benefit","paragraphs":["para_715","para_716","para_717","para_718","para_719","para_720"]},{"title":"Contract “even more nebulous” than the connection offered","paragraphs":["para_722","para_723"]},{"title":"Snyder’s wife derived a benefit “solely from her relationship","paragraphs":["para_725","para_726"]},{"title":"The second case, Peterson, concerned an arbitration agree-","paragraphs":["para_728","para_729","para_730","para_731","para_732","para_733","para_734","para_735","para_736"]},{"title":"Airbnb appealed and argued that direct benefits estoppel","paragraphs":["para_738"]},{"title":"Airbnb claimed that Peterson’s tort claims stemmed from the","paragraphs":["para_740"]},{"title":"Snyder, the court rejected this argument. Peterson’s negli-","paragraphs":["para_742","para_743"]},{"title":"No. 22-2813 25","paragraphs":["para_745","para_746"]},{"title":"Snyder and Peterson further persuade us that direct bene-","paragraphs":["para_748","para_749"]},{"title":"Rather, they seek to enforce the Illinois Genetic Information","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Privacy Act against Ancestry. The grounds Illinois courts","paragraphs":["para_752","para_753"]},{"title":"After considering the authorities cited by the parties, those","paragraphs":["para_755","para_756","para_757","para_758","para_759"]},{"title":"The record before us, without an allegation that plaintiffs","paragraphs":["para_761","para_762","para_763","para_764","para_765","para_766","para_767","para_768","para_769","para_770","para_771"]},{"title":"A provision in the Terms designating minor children","paragraphs":["para_773"]},{"title":"Ancestry users or parties to the Terms could lead to a different","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"26 No. 22-2813","paragraphs":["para_776","para_777","para_778","para_779"]},{"title":"For the reasons above, we AFFIRM the district court’s","paragraphs":["para_781"]},{"title":"7 Plaintiffs have argued that the lack of such a provision makes this an","paragraphs":["para_783","para_784","para_785"]},{"title":"A.D. nor Credit One followed any step of that procedure). 885 F.3d at","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1060–61. As plaintiffs argued, the Terms here do not contain any such pro-","paragraphs":["para_788","para_789"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"In the","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"For the Seventh Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"No. 22-2813","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"ALEX COATNEY, individually and on behalf of similarly","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"situated individuals, et al.,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Plaintiffs-Appellees,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"ANCESTRY.COM DNA, LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Defendant-Appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court for the","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Southern District of Illinois.","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"No. 3:21-cv-01368-DWD — David W. Dugan, Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 2023 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 2024","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Ancestry.com sells genealogy","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"tools to aid users in researching their family history. Regis-","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"tered users of its website must first agree to an arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"clause. In this case, guardians activated DNA test kits through","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"their accounts on behalf of their children. Those children are","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"the plaintiffs here. When another business acquired Ancestry,","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"the plaintiffs contended that Ancestry violated their privacy","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"2 No. 22-2813","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"rights by disclosing confidential genetic information and","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"sued. Ancestry moved to compel arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Sitting in diversity and applying Illinois law, the district","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"court ruled that the plaintiffs were not bound to arbitrate their","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"claims under an agreement between their guardians and An-","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"cestry. We agree and affirm the decision of the district court.","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"I. Background","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"Ancestry.com DNA, LLC is a genealogy and consumer","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"genomics company.1 Users who create online accounts may","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"purchase a DNA test kit through which Ancestry collects con-","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"sumer saliva samples. Ancestry then analyzes the genetic in-","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"formation in those samples and returns genealogical and","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"health information to the purchaser through its website.","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"Individuals who purchase and activate Ancestry DNA test","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"kits must agree to Ancestry’s Terms & Conditions. Under the","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"Terms, only adults may purchase or activate a DNA test kit.","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"However, minors thirteen to eighteen years old may still use","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"Ancestry’s DNA service. A parent or legal guardian may acti-","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"vate a DNA test kit and send in a minor’s saliva sample using","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"an account for the child that the parent or guardian manages.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"Between 2016 and 2019, guardians purchased and acti-","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"vated test kits on behalf of plaintiffs, who were all minors at","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"the time. When activating the kits, the guardians took a num-","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"ber of steps. In January 2016, N.S.’s guardian accessed Ances-","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"try’s website to enter N.S.’s personal information, confirm she","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"was a parent or guardian providing a minor’s DNA, and","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"1 Genomics is a field of biology focused on studying all the DNA of","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"an organism—that is, its genome. National Human Genome Research In-","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"stitute. https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/genomics","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"No. 22-2813 3","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"verify her review and acceptance of the Terms. Coatney’s","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"guardian followed a similar process when activating a DNA","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"test kit on Coatney’s behalf in December 2017, and also com-","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"pleted additional, separate terms contained in a DNA Pro-","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"cessing Consent. H.S.’s and B.H.’s guardian completed these","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"same steps when activating test kits in August and September","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"of 2019.2","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"The DNA Processing Consent lists several provisions re-","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"lated to Ancestry’s use of a minor’s DNA and a guardian’s","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"agreement. It states, “When you activate your child’s DNA","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"test kit, you consent to Ancestry’s collection and processing of","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"your child’s DNA data.” A guardian’s consent grants Ances-","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"try permission to, among other things:","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":" “Convert the physical DNA sample into DNA data","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"and use your child’s DNA data to provide reports","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"about your child’s ancestral origins;”","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":" “Identify your child’s potential relatives;” and","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":" “Use your child’s DNA data … to help you and","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"your child discover other details about your family","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"history.”","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"The Terms, in each iteration, contain a dispute resolution","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"provision, binding the parties to arbitration and waiving any","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"class actions. Language in the Terms notifies Ancestry’s users","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"that continued use of Ancestry’s services after a change to the","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"Terms constitutes acceptance of that change. The Terms also","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"2 H.S.’s and B.H.’s guardian—Donna Roberts—had previously cre-","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"ated an Ancestry account in 2015 and accepted the Terms. Roberts main-","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"tained her account through multiple updates of the Terms, including those","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"in effect at the same time she activated DNA test kits on H.S.’s and B.H.’s","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"behalf.","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"4 No. 22-2813","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"include specific provisions pertaining to Ancestry’s DNA Ser-","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"vices:","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"“DNA Services” refers to the use of our DNA","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"collection kit, processing and handling of your","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"DNA sample, genetic testing of your DNA sam-","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"ple, and our web or mobile app-based tools that","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"provide you with ethnicity and other genet-","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"ically related results and associated services, of-","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"fer you the ability to view genetic matches that","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"can identify potential relatives, help you ex-","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"plore your ethnic and family origins, and make","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"new discoveries through your DNA.","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"As the Terms explain, “[t]he purpose of the DNA Services is","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"to provide genetic and genealogy results and related reports","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"for your informational, recreational, educational, and re-","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"search use.”","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"The Terms did not require the plaintiffs to read them.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"Plaintiffs allege they did not, and also that they did not create","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"Ancestry accounts. Nor did plaintiffs ever access their guard-","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"ians’ accounts, receive their DNA test results, or interact with","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"Ancestry’s website in any way before filing suit.","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"In 2020, Blackstone, Inc. acquired Ancestry. Plaintiffs sued","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"Ancestry in federal court, claiming that the acquisition re-","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"sulted in Ancestry disclosing genetic test results and personal,","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"identifying information to Blackstone without obtaining writ-","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"ten authorization, in violation of the Illinois Genetic Infor-","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"mation Privacy Act. See 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. 513/1, et seq.","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"Plaintiffs filed a purported class action under the Class Action","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"Fairness Act, and the district court had diversity jurisdiction","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"No. 22-2813 5","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"Under the Terms’ dispute resolution provisions, Ancestry","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4. The district court denied Ancestry’s motion.","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"To that court, it was clear that Ancestry and plaintiffs’ guard-","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"ians had agreed to arbitration, but that court still had to de-","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"cide whether plaintiffs were also bound by the agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"First, the district court rejected Ancestry’s assertion that","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"plaintiffs assented to the Terms by agreeing to use Ancestry’s","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"services and submitting their DNA tests through their guard-","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"ians’ accounts or through their guardians’ execution of con-","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"sent forms on plaintiffs’ behalf. The court did not read the","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"Terms’ plain, unambiguous language to support that asser-","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"tion. Plaintiffs neither signed the Terms nor created Ancestry","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"accounts, so the district court declined to find that plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"had consented to those Terms. Further, plaintiffs did not acti-","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"vate their own DNA tests or otherwise independently engage","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"with Ancestry’s services.","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"Second, the district court concluded that equitable princi-","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"ples did not bind plaintiffs to the Terms. Specifically address-","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"ing a theory of direct benefits estoppel, the court noted, “it is","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"hard to imagine what benefit … Plaintiffs received from the","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"processing of their DNA,” where there were no allegations","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"that Plaintiffs accessed their guardians’ Ancestry accounts or","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"their DNA test results.","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"Ancestry timely filed this interlocutory appeal. “Interloc-","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"utory appeals from denials of motions to order arbitration are","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"authorized by 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B).” Andermann v. Sprint","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"Spectrum L.P., 785 F.3d 1157, 1157 (7th Cir. 2015).","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"6 No. 22-2813","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"II. Discussion","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"Ancestry urges us to reverse the district court’s denial of","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"its motion to compel arbitration on three grounds:","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":" Plaintiffs’ guardians assented to the Terms on their","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"behalf;","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":" Plaintiffs are “closely related” parties to their","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"guardians (or even third-party beneficiaries), fore-","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"seeably bound by the Terms; or","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":" As direct beneficiaries of the Terms, plaintiffs are","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"estopped from avoiding them.","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"compel arbitration and the “findings of fact underlying that","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"decision for clear error.” Sosa v. Onfido, Inc., 8 F.4th 631, 638","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"(7th Cir. 2021). The district court’s application of equitable","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"doctrines is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"Before addressing Ancestry’s arguments, we review some","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"general legal principles surrounding arbitration. The FAA","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"“requires federal and state courts to place written arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"agreements on the same footing as other contracts.” Scheurer","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"v. Fromm Family Foods, LLC, 863 F.3d 748, 752 (7th Cir. 2017)","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"(citing 9 U.S.C. § 2). A court must compel arbitration under","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"the FAA when three elements exist: “(1) an enforceable writ-","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"ten agreement to arbitrate, (2) a dispute within the scope of","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"the arbitration agreement, and (3) a refusal to arbitrate.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"(citing 9 U.S.C. § 4).","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"Arbitration is contractual, and “[a] party cannot be","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"agreed so to submit.” Id. (quotations omitted). It is a “bedrock","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"principle” that “an arbitration agreement generally cannot","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"No. 22-2813 7","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"bind a non-signatory.” A.D. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 885 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"1054, 1059 (7th Cir. 2018). Whether an arbitration agreement","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"is enforceable against a non-party is a question governed by","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"“traditional principles of state law.” Arthur Andersen LLP v.","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 631 (2009); Scheurer, 863 F.3d at 752. State","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"law typically provides only for a handful of limited","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"exceptions to the general prohibition against binding non-","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"signatories: “(1) assumption, (2) agency, (3) estoppel, (4) veil","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"piercing, and (5) incorporation by reference.” A.D., 885 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"at 1059–60 (citing Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Watts Indus., Inc., 417","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2005)).","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"Illinois law governs, so we turn there for the specific legal","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"rules to resolve this appeal, mindful that we must ascertain","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"those principles as Illinois would understand them, even if","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"faced with a lack of a ready answer. Two “guardrails” keep us","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"on course. Green Plains Trade Grp., LLC v. Archer Daniels Mid-","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"land Co., 90 F.4th 919, 928 (7th Cir. 2024). First, “in the absence","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"of prevailing authority from the state’s highest court,” we","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"“give great weight to the holdings of the state’s intermediate","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"appellate courts.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Menards, Inc., 285 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"630, 637 (7th Cir. 2002). We deviate from those holdings only","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"where there are “persuasive indications that the highest court","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"of the state would decide the case differently.” Id. Second,","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"when presented with “two equally plausible readings of state","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"law,” we “should not choose the alternative that requires us","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"to predict a change or an expansion in extant state legal doc-","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"trine.” Green Plains Trade Group, 90 F.4th at 929.","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"A. Assent by Conduct","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"Ancestry argues that “[t]he conduct of Plaintiffs’ guardi-","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"ans unambiguously established consent to Ancestry’s Terms","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"on Plaintiffs’ behalf,” making plaintiffs direct parties. That","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"8 No. 22-2813","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"conduct, Ancestry submits, occurred when a guardian acti-","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"vated a DNA test kit in a plaintiff’s name, verified their guard-","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"ian status, agreed to the Terms, sought a plaintiff’s consent to","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"collect and submit their DNA, and administered the DNA","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"test.","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"Looking to Illinois law, our analysis begins with the","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"Terms’ language, which we “endeavor to give … ‘its plain and","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"ordinary meaning.’” Romspen Mortg. Ltd. P’ship v. BGC Hold-","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"ings LLC – Arlington Place One, 20 F. 4th 359, 372 (7th Cir. 2021)","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"(quoting Gallagher v. Lenhart, 874 N.E.2d 43, 58 (Ill. 2007)). The","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"goal of Illinois contract law “is to give effect to the intent of","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"the parties as demonstrated through objective conduct.” Jan-","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"iga v. Questar Cap. Corp., 615 F.3d 735, 742 (7th Cir. 2010) (cit-","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"ing Carey v. Richards Bldg. Supply Co., 856 N.E. 2d 24, 27 (Ill.","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"2006)).","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"That plain and ordinary meaning is unambiguous here.","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"Plaintiffs are not express parties to the Terms. As shown in the","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"use of “you” throughout the Terms, the only parties to the","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"agreement are the signatory and Ancestry. The Terms also say","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"they “are personal” to the signatory, who “may not … assign","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"or transfer any … rights and obligations” established by them.","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"Ancestry’s only counter to the Terms’ plain language is an","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"unpublished district court decision, Burns v. Wilderness Ven-","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"tures, Inc., No. 12 C 4188, 2012 WL 3779069 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 30,","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"2012). There, the father of a deceased sixteen-year-old girl","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"sued on behalf of her estate after she was killed in an accident","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"while taking part in defendant’s wilderness program. Id. at *1.","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"The minor and her mother signed two contracts with the de-","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"fendant. Id. at *2. Each contract contained a forum selection","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"clause setting Teton County, Wyoming as the sole jurisdiction","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"and venue of any legal proceeding arising out of the","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"No. 22-2813 9","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"wilderness program.3 Id. The contracts also contained lan-","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"guage informing a signatory parent or guardian that their sig-","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"nature was “on behalf of the Participant, myself, and my","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"spouse … .” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"Burns sued, and Wilderness Ventures moved to dismiss","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"for improper venue. Id. at *1. Burns claimed the forum selec-","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"tion clause could not bind his daughter’s estate. Id. at *3. The","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"district court rejected this argument. The decedent’s mother","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"signed the contracts as an individual and as the girl’s guard-","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"ian. The court also found persuasive authority permitting a","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"parent or guardian to bind their minor child to a specific fo-","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"rum or arbitration because such agreements do not limit the","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"minor’s “substantive right to sue,” but only “limit the proce-","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"dural avenues of such suit to those mutually agreed.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"Ancestry urges us to follow Burns, but we decline for two","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"reasons. First, the court in Burns did not enforce the forum","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"selection clause based on the parents’ conduct. Rather, the","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"court did so because her mother signed contracts explicitly","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"noting that a guardian’s signature constituted agreement on","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"behalf of the minor child. Id. Nothing in Burns discusses any","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"conduct, outside of signing the contracts, that purportedly","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"bound the decedent to the forum selection clause. Second, the","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"contracts in Burns differ markedly from the Terms here. The","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"decedent’s mother signed the contracts with the forum selec-","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"tion clause “on behalf of” her minor child. Id. at *2. Ancestry’s","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"Terms do not say plaintiffs’ guardians agreed to them “on be-","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"half of” their children. Ancestry correctly points out that in","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"3 Because arbitration clauses are a type of forum selection clause, see","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"Jackson v. Payday Fin., LLC, 764 F.3d 765, 773 (7th Cir. 2014), authorities","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"involving forum selection clauses are useful in our analysis.","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"10 No. 22-2813","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"Burns, the court ignored the decedent’s own signature. Id. at","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"*3. Here, though, the only “on behalf of” (or similar language)","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"was not in Ancestry’s own contract, but in the DNA Pro-","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"cessing Consent. That Consent says nothing about binding","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"plaintiffs to the Terms—indeed, it does not mention the","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"Terms at all.4","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"4 When contending that the guardians’ conduct bound plaintiffs to the","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"Terms, Ancestry cites a smattering of cases not from Illinois or from out-","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"side this circuit. These cases are distinguishable.","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"Two concerned arbitration clauses comparable to the forum selection","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"clause in Burns, indicating that agreement to them was on behalf of the","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"minor child. See Glob. Travel Mkt., Inc. v. Shea, 908 So.2d 392, 395 (Fla. 2005)","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"(“I, as parent or legal guardian of the below named minor, … agree, indi-","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"vidually and on behalf of my child or ward, to the terms of the above.”);","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"Cross v. Carnes, 724 N.E.2d 828, 831 (Oh. App. Ct. 1998) (noting that the","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"form containing the arbitration clause included two signature lines for the","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"parent to sign, one for the parent individually and the other on behalf of","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"her minor daughter). Another was not decided on comparable grounds;","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"rather, the court concluded that a parent’s agreement to arbitrate a minor’s","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"potential tort claims generally does not run contrary to public policy con-","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"cerns. Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 901 A.2d 381, 391 (N.J. 2006).","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"The last case Ancestry cites on this point, Dillon v. Ski Shawnee, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"No. 13-7155, 2014 WL 3900877 (D.N.J. Aug. 11, 2014), is too brief to help.","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"There, a mother purchased ski lift tickets and agreed to a forum selection","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"clause setting forum in New Jersey state court, for herself and her minor","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"daughter. Id. at *1. Following the daughter’s injury at defendant’s ski area,","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"the mother and daughter sued; defendant sought to enforce the forum","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"selection clause. Id. The plaintiffs argued the daughter never agreed to the","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"clause, as she did not purchase a lift ticket. The district court rejected this","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"argument, concluding “[a] parent can bind a minor child to a forum-","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"selection clause to which the parent agreed to enter.” Id. at *2. Without","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"more analysis, Dillon does not help us decide whether the guardians’","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"conduct bound plaintiffs to the Terms.","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"No. 22-2813 11","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"B. Closely Related and Third-Party Beneficiary","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"Arguments","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"Even if plaintiffs are not direct parties under the plain lan-","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"guage of the Terms, Ancestry submits they are bound either","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"as closely related parties or third-party beneficiaries.","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"The company mounts these arguments from shaky legal","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"ground, as Illinois “recognize[s] a strong presumption against","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"conferring contractual benefits on noncontracting third par-","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"ties.” Sosa, 8 F.4th at 639 (quotations omitted); see also Estate of","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"Willis v. Kiferbaum Const. Corp., 830 N.E.2d 636, 642 (Ill. App.","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"Ct. 2005); Ball Corp. v. Bohlin Bldg. Corp., 543 N.E.2d 106, 107","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"(Ill. App. Ct. 1989); Midwest Concrete Prods. Co. v. La Salle Nat’l","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"Bank, 418 N.E.2d 988, 990 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981) (quoting 17 AM.","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"JUR. 2d Contracts § 304, at 729–30 (1964)). That presumption is","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"overcome only where “the implication” that the contract ap-","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"plies to a third party is “so strong as to be practically an ex-","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"press declaration.” Sosa, 8 F.4th at 639 (quoting 155 Harbor","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"Drive Condo. Ass’n v. Harbor Point Inc., 568 N.E.2d 365, 375 (Ill.","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"App. Ct. 1991)). Showing that the “parties know, expect, or","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"even intend that others will benefit from the agreement” will","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"not suffice to overcome the presumption against third-party","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"beneficiaries. Id. (quoting Marque Medicos Farnsworth, LLC v.","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 117 N.E.3d 1155, 1159 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)).","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"“Instead, for a nonparty to qualify as a third-party benefi-","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"ciary, the language of the contract must show that ‘the con-","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"tract was made for the direct, not merely incidental, benefit of","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"the third person.’” Id. (quoting Martis v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsur-","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"ance Co., 905 N.E.2d 920, 924 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)). That show-","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"ing exists only in “an express provision in the contract identi-","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"fying the third-party beneficiary by name or by description of","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"a class to which the party belongs.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"12 No. 22-2813","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"Importantly, the Terms exclude third-party beneficiaries:","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"“There shall be no third-party beneficiaries to this Agree-","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"ment.” Ancestry seeks to avoid this exclusion, citing one case","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"for the proposition that general provisions excluding third-","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"party beneficiaries do not supersede more specific language","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"included elsewhere. See Barba v. Village of Bensenville, 29","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"N.E.3d 1187, 1194–95 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). But the only specific","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"language Ancestry points to are the provisions in the DNA","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"Processing Consent. Most of that language, like most of the","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"Terms’ provisions, uses “you” and “your” to refer to the per-","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"son executing the DNA Processing Consent: the child’s parent","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"or guardian.","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"Illinois’ strong presumption against conferring contrac-","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"tual benefits on noncontracting third parties, as well as the","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"Terms’ express prohibition, hobbles Ancestry’s position. The","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"law on closely related parties and third-party beneficiaries","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"does not strengthen it.","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"i. Plaintiffs are not closely related parties foreseeably bound","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"by the Terms.","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"A nonparty will be bound by a forum selection clause if","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"the nonparty is “closely related” to the dispute “such that it","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"becomes foreseeable that [the nonparty] will be bound.”","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"Hugel v. Corp. of Lloyd’s, 999 F.2d 206, 209 (7th Cir. 1993) (quo-","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"tation marks omitted);5 Solargenix Energy, LLC v. Acciona, S.A.,","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"17 N.E.3d 171, 183 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (adopting Hugel’s","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"5 In Hugel, we concluded that third-party beneficiary status would sat-","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"isfy the “closely related” and “foreseeability” requirements, while also","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"recognizing that a showing of third-party beneficiary status is not re-","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"quired for a showing that a party is closely related. 999 F.3d at 209–10 n.","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"7.","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"No. 22-2813 13","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"closely related parties test). “Where there is a sufficiently","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"close relationship between the non-signatory and the dispute","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"and the parties, it does not defy the non-signatory’s reasona-","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"ble expectations that it would be bound.” Solargenix, 17","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"N.E.3d at 185.","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"Ancestry asks us to apply Hugel and Solargenix to reverse","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"the district court’s decision that plaintiffs are not closely re-","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"lated parties foreseeably bound to the Terms. To Ancestry, the","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"plaintiffs, as minors under the guardians’ supervision, are","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"closely related to them. The guardians consented to the Terms","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"when activating the DNA test kits. So, it was foreseeable,","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"should a dispute arise, that plaintiffs would be bound by the","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"Terms.","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"But Hugel and Solargenix do not extend as far as Ancestry","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"would like. In Hugel, a company, its subsidiary, and their","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"president and chairman, Hugel, sued Lloyd’s over a business","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"dispute in Illinois federal district court. 999 F.2d at 207. When","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"Lloyd’s attempted to enforce a forum selection clause fixing","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"the legal forum in England, the companies argued that the","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"clause applied only to Hugel, who signed the agreement in-","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"cluding the forum selection clause. Id. The district court re-","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"fused to exercise jurisdiction. Id. Our court affirmed, holding","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"companies were so closely related to the dispute between","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"Hugel and Lloyd’s. Id. at 210. Hugel was president and chair-","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"man of both companies and owned 99 percent of the parent","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"company’s stock, which in turn owned 100 percent of the sub-","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"sidiary’s stock. Id. at 209–10. Hugel and the companies were","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"essentially one.","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"Solargenix required an Illinois state court to decide","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"whether it could exercise personal jurisdiction over Spanish","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"14 No. 22-2813","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"companies whose American subsidiaries agreed to a joint","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"venture that contained a forum selection provision fixing","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"venue in Chicago. 17 N.E.3d at 174, 177. Adopting Hugel’s","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"closely related parties test, the Illinois appellate court af-","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"firmed the lower court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the Span-","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"ish companies. Id. at 182, 189. Jurisdictional discovery re-","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"vealed that the Spanish companies, as parents of the Ameri-","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"can subsidiaries, “were heavily involved in negotiating and","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"approving the joint venture agreements.” Id. at 182. This in-","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"volvement showed the Spanish companies’ close relation to","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"the dispute and made it foreseeable that any dispute arising","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"from the joint venture would reasonably result in binding","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"them to the agreement’s forum selection clause. Id. at 189.","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"Hugel and Solargenix present two circumstances in which","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"a non-signatory is a closely related party to an agreement and","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"foreseeably bound by its terms. In the first, the non-","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"signatory’s identity is so intertwined with the identity of the","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"signatory that the two cannot be distinguished. In the second,","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"the non-signatory is deeply involved in the negotiation of the","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"contractual terms.","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"Neither scenario applies to plaintiffs. Though a special re-","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"lationship exists between plaintiffs and their guardians, in","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"fact and in law that relationship does not join their identities,","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"as can be the case with parent and subsidiary corporations.","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"Further, neither plaintiffs nor their guardians negotiated the","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"Terms. Indeed, there is no evidence plaintiffs even knew the","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"Terms.","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"No. 22-2813 15","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"ii. Plaintiffs are not third-party beneficiaries under Illinois","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"law.","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"Ancestry asserts plaintiffs benefited from the Terms such","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"that they should be considered third-party beneficiaries to","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"them. To the company, “Plaintiffs were intended to—and","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"did—benefit from the agreements with Ancestry.” That is be-","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"cause “Ancestry sequenced and analyzed Plaintiffs’ DNA to","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"generate insights about Plaintiffs’ genetic history.” For sup-","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"port, Ancestry points to a provision in the DNA Processing","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"Consent, stating Ancestry would “[u]se your child’s DNA","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"data … to help you and your child discover other details","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"about your family history.”","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"This court’s decision in Sosa is instructive in evaluating","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"Ancestry’s argument. There, a non-signatory sought to en-","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"force an arbitration clause. Sosa filed a class action suit against","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"Onfido, alleging that the company used technology without","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"his consent to extract biometric identifiers in violation of the","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Sosa, 8 F.4th at 635.","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"Sosa’s interaction with Onfido’s software, TruYou, came","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"through his use of OfferUp, an online marketplace that part-","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"nered with Onfido to verify consumers’ identities. Id. When","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"Sosa registered with OfferUp and used its app, he agreed to","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"OfferUp’s Terms of Service and a mandatory arbitration pro-","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"vision. Onfido was not named in the Terms of Service, but its","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"software was. Onfido sought to compel arbitration, arguing","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"that it was a third-party beneficiary of the Terms of Service","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"based on the references to its software. Id. at 636.","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"In Sosa, we rejected Onfido’s argument that it qualified as","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"a third-party beneficiary. Id. at 639–40. The language on","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"which Onfido relied “simply prohibit[ed] OfferUp users from","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"using the TruYou feature without first obtaining necessary","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"16 No. 22-2813","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"permissions … or if their use of the feature would violate”","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"laws or regulations. Id. at 639. “Nothing in the Terms of Ser-","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"vice indicate[d] that this section or the contract as a whole","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"were intended for the direct benefit of Onfido.” Id. Moreover,","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"even if “Onfido ultimately incidentally incurred a benefit","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"from the contract’s TruYou provision, that [was] not sufficient","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"to demonstrate that Onfido qualifie[d] as a third-party bene-","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"ficiary under Illinois law.” Id. We concluded that the OfferUp","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"Terms of Service, “[r]ead as a whole … neither provide any","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"benefit to Onfido nor give Onfido a right to enforce the arbi-","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"tration provision.” Id. at 640.","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"As with the terms of service in Sosa, the Terms here do not","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"state that they were intended for the direct benefit of plain-","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"tiffs. Admittedly, they are slightly more specific than those in","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"Sosa. The DNA Processing Consent, incorporated into the","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"Terms, contemplates that consent to Ancestry’s processing","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"and analysis of a child’s DNA will enable Ancestry’s provi-","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"sion of:","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"• Reports about the child’s ancestral origins;","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"• Insights about the “child’s ethnicity, places of","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"origin, ancestors, individual traits, and characteris-","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"tics;”","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"• Identification of potential relatives; and","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"• The ability to “to help you and your child” discover","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"other details about family history.","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"But nothing in the DNA Processing Consent says the Terms","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"are for plaintiffs’ direct benefit. The only reference in the","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"Terms to minors is as possible subjects from whom saliva","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"samples could be collected.","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"No. 22-2813 17","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"Additionally, the Terms’ arbitration provision did not in-","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"tend to directly benefit plaintiffs. In Johnson v. Noble, the rele-","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"vant provision stated that certain disputes “between or","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"among members and/or associated persons, and/or certain","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"others, arising in connection with the business of such mem-","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"ber(s) or in connection with the activities of such associated","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"person(s), shall be arbitrated.” 608 N.E.2d 537, 539 (Ill. App.","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"Ct. 1992). The Illinois Appellate Court ruled that the third-","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"party beneficiary doctrine to compel arbitration is properly","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"applied when the non-signatory was to derive a benefit from","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"the agreement and “where the arbitration clause itself is sus-","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"ceptible to this interpretation.” Id. at 541. The court reasoned","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"that the relevant provision included two non-signatories as","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"third-party beneficiaries because they were “associated per-","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"sons with a member … as stated in the agreement.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"Here, the Terms’ arbitration provision does not contain","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"language capturing the plaintiffs. As with language else-","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"where in the Terms, the provision refers to “you and Ances-","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"try,” and “dispute[s] between us.” This language indicates","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"that the signatories intended to bind themselves, but not oth-","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"ers, to arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"The Terms are presumed to directly benefit its signatories,","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"who are Ancestry and the guardians. That both knew, ex-","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"pected, or even intended for plaintiffs to benefit from the","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"agreement does not overcome that presumption. If Ancestry","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"and the guardians expected plaintiffs to directly benefit from","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"the Terms, the Terms do not state that. Ancestry did not in-","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"clude language memorializing its contrary intent, defeating","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"their third-party beneficiary argument.","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"18 No. 22-2813","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"C. Direct Benefits Estoppel","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"Ancestry offers one other theory to rebut the presumption","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"under Illinois law against binding non-signatories to con-","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"tracts. As direct beneficiaries of their guardians’ agreement to","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"the Terms, plaintiffs are estopped from avoiding its arbitra-","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"tion provision. Though Illinois state courts have not applied","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"direct benefits estoppel to enforce arbitration against a non-","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"signatory, Ancestry argues that this court in Everett v. Paul Da-","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"vis Restoration, Inc., 771 F.3d 380 (7th Cir. 2014), and other fed-","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"eral courts have employed direct benefits estoppel to bind","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"non-signatories to arbitration. The company submits that it","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"sequenced plaintiff’s DNA samples, “the precise benefit","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"Plaintiffs sought when they ‘discussed the DNA test … and","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"… agreed to the collection and processing of their saliva.’” To","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"Ancestry, this benefit to plaintiffs flows directly from the","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"Terms containing the arbitration provision, “because Ances-","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"try would have never provided services without those agree-","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"ments.”","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"But this benefit is theoretical, speculative, and unrealized,","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"plaintiffs say. They received a benefit that flowed from the","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"Terms: genetic analysis conducted by Ancestry. This benefit","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"is limited, plaintiffs submit, like the small benefit the plaintiff","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"received in A.D. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 885 F.3d 1054 (7th","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"Cir. 2018). There is no direct benefit here, plaintiffs argue, be-","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"cause there is no allegation that they have ever viewed this","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"genetic analysis. So, they urge us to affirm the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"conclusion that “theoretical access to Defendant’s services”","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"was not enough to bind Plaintiffs to Ancestry’s terms.","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"Authority applying direct benefits estoppel under Illinois","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"law is scarce. The Supreme Court of Illinois has not directly","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"addressed the topic. And neither Snyder v. Jack Schmitt Ford,","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"No. 22-2813 19","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"Inc., No. 5-21-0413, 2022 WL 1197374 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022), nor","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"Peterson v. Devita, No. 1-23-0356, 2023 WL 6166964 (Ill. App.","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"Ct. 2023), applied direct benefits estoppel to bind a non-","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"signatory to a contract. This absence of authority counsels us","paragraph_id":"para_558"},{"text":"that Illinois would not embrace direct benefits estoppel to","paragraph_id":"para_559"},{"text":"bind plaintiffs here.","paragraph_id":"para_560"},{"text":"i. A.D., not Everett, governs and instructs that direct","paragraph_id":"para_561"},{"text":"benefits estoppel does not apply.","paragraph_id":"para_562"},{"text":"Under direct benefits estoppel, “[a] nonsignatory party is","paragraph_id":"para_563"},{"text":"estopped from avoiding arbitration if it knowingly seeks the","paragraph_id":"para_564"},{"text":"benefits of the contract containing the arbitration clause.”","paragraph_id":"para_565"},{"text":"Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 417 F.3d at 688; A.D., 885 F.3d at 1064. The","paragraph_id":"para_566"},{"text":"benefit accruing to the non-signatory “must flow directly","paragraph_id":"para_567"},{"text":"from the agreement.” Everett, 771 F.3d at 383. “Thus, a benefit","paragraph_id":"para_568"},{"text":"derived from the agreement itself is direct. However, a benefit","paragraph_id":"para_569"},{"text":"derived from the exploitation of the contractual relationship","paragraph_id":"para_570"},{"text":"of parties to an agreement, but not the agreement itself, is in-","paragraph_id":"para_571"},{"text":"direct.” Id. at 383–84.","paragraph_id":"para_572"},{"text":"Everett concerned “whether an owner-operator of a fran-","paragraph_id":"para_573"},{"text":"chise is obligated to arbitrate under a franchise agreement be-","paragraph_id":"para_574"},{"text":"cause she received direct benefits from the agreement despite","paragraph_id":"para_575"},{"text":"not having signed the document.” 771 F.3d at 381–82. The","paragraph_id":"para_576"},{"text":"plaintiff’s husband and his company, EA Green Bay, LLC","paragraph_id":"para_577"},{"text":"(“EAGB”), entered into a franchise agreement containing an","paragraph_id":"para_578"},{"text":"arbitration clause with defendant PDRI. Id. at 382. Ms. Ever-","paragraph_id":"para_579"},{"text":"ett, the plaintiff, held a 50% ownership stake in EAGB, but did","paragraph_id":"para_580"},{"text":"not sign the franchise agreement. Id. When PDRI terminated","paragraph_id":"para_581"},{"text":"the franchise agreement, Mr. Everett transferred 45 percent of","paragraph_id":"para_582"},{"text":"his ownership interest to Ms. Everett, who continued to oper-","paragraph_id":"para_583"},{"text":"ate EAGB under the name Building Werks—all while serving","paragraph_id":"para_584"},{"text":"the same customers, at the same location, employing the same","paragraph_id":"para_585"},{"text":"20 No. 22-2813","paragraph_id":"para_586"},{"text":"people, and trading upon the goodwill and reputation gar-","paragraph_id":"para_587"},{"text":"nered while a PDRI franchise. Id. at 382–83.","paragraph_id":"para_588"},{"text":"When PDRI discovered this, it sought to compel","paragraph_id":"para_589"},{"text":"arbitration. Id. at 383. Ms. Everett filed suit, seeking a","paragraph_id":"para_590"},{"text":"declaratory judgment that she was not bound to arbitrate as a","paragraph_id":"para_591"},{"text":"non-signatory to the franchise agreement. Id.at 383. At first,","paragraph_id":"para_592"},{"text":"the district court denied Ms. Everett’s attempt to avoid","paragraph_id":"para_593"},{"text":"arbitration. But, when PDRI returned to the district court to","paragraph_id":"para_594"},{"text":"request confirmation of the arbitration award, Ms. Everett","paragraph_id":"para_595"},{"text":"moved to vacate the award. Id. The district court agreed and","paragraph_id":"para_596"},{"text":"reversed its earlier determination, finding that any benefit","paragraph_id":"para_597"},{"text":"Ms. Everett received from the franchise agreement was","paragraph_id":"para_598"},{"text":"“indirect because it flowed through her ownership interest in","paragraph_id":"para_599"},{"text":"EAGB and her relationship to Mr. Everett, but not to her","paragraph_id":"para_600"},{"text":"directly.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_601"},{"text":"This court reversed. Id. at 385. “Ms. Everett was not merely","paragraph_id":"para_602"},{"text":"exploiting the contractual relationship among EAGB, Mr. Ev-","paragraph_id":"para_603"},{"text":"erett, and PDRI, but rather the benefit of the contract itself—","paragraph_id":"para_604"},{"text":"namely owning and operating a PDRI franchise.” Id. at 384.","paragraph_id":"para_605"},{"text":"Ms. Everett received the same benefits as her husband, “in-","paragraph_id":"para_606"},{"text":"clud[ing] benefitting from trading upon the name, goodwill,","paragraph_id":"para_607"},{"text":"reputation and other direct contractual benefits of the fran-","paragraph_id":"para_608"},{"text":"chise agreement.” Id. This court further recognized that","paragraph_id":"para_609"},{"text":"“[w]ithout the franchise agreement, EAGB and the business it","paragraph_id":"para_610"},{"text":"operated would not have existed, and thus Ms. Everett’s own-","paragraph_id":"para_611"},{"text":"ership interest would not have existed.” Id. at 385. Thus, “Ms.","paragraph_id":"para_612"},{"text":"Everett’s ownership interest in EAGB was itself a direct ben-","paragraph_id":"para_613"},{"text":"efit of the agreement, and not a separate relationship that the","paragraph_id":"para_614"},{"text":"benefits of the agreement flowed through.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_615"},{"text":"In sum, Ms. Everett received direct benefits from the fran-","paragraph_id":"para_616"},{"text":"chise agreement to which she was a non-signatory: power,","paragraph_id":"para_617"},{"text":"No. 22-2813 21","paragraph_id":"para_618"},{"text":"control, and direction of the franchise as well as economic","paragraph_id":"para_619"},{"text":"benefits derived from the company’ prior affiliation with","paragraph_id":"para_620"},{"text":"PDRI. These were not potential benefits; Ms. Everett held and","paragraph_id":"para_621"},{"text":"wielded these benefits.","paragraph_id":"para_622"},{"text":"Here, the benefit plaintiffs received is not as direct as the","paragraph_id":"para_623"},{"text":"benefit in Everett.6 As the district court recognized, the benefit","paragraph_id":"para_624"},{"text":"to plaintiffs is “potential” or “inchoate.” Plaintiffs have theo-","paragraph_id":"para_625"},{"text":"retical access to Ancestry’s services, but there are no allega-","paragraph_id":"para_626"},{"text":"tions that they have accessed Ancestry’s analysis of their","paragraph_id":"para_627"},{"text":"DNA. And, as we noted above in our discussion of Ancestry’s","paragraph_id":"para_628"},{"text":"third-party beneficiary argument, the Terms do not suggest","paragraph_id":"para_629"},{"text":"they benefit anyone other than the signatory and Ancestry.","paragraph_id":"para_630"},{"text":"A.D. is closer to this case. It concerned a minor’s putative","paragraph_id":"para_631"},{"text":"class action against Credit One for alleged violations of the","paragraph_id":"para_632"},{"text":"Telephone Consumer Protection Act. 885 F.3d at 1057. A.D.","paragraph_id":"para_633"},{"text":"sought compensation for telephone calls made by Credit One","paragraph_id":"para_634"},{"text":"to her telephone number in attempts to collect a debt A.D. did","paragraph_id":"para_635"},{"text":"not owe. Id. The debt was her mother’s, and Credit One’s","paragraph_id":"para_636"},{"text":"caller ID capture system had added A.D.’s phone number","paragraph_id":"para_637"},{"text":"when her mother used A.D.’s phone to access her account. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_638"},{"text":"at 1058. Importantly, the standard cardholder agreement be-","paragraph_id":"para_639"},{"text":"tween Credit One and A.D.’s mother contained an arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_640"},{"text":"clause and a class action waiver. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_641"},{"text":"6 Everett was a diversity case applying Wisconsin, not Illinois, law. Its","paragraph_id":"para_642"},{"text":"discussion and application of direct benefits estoppel cites approvingly to","paragraph_id":"para_643"},{"text":"precedent of this court, the Second Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit, none of","paragraph_id":"para_644"},{"text":"which relied on Illinois law to resolve the question. See Zurich Am. Ins. Co.,","paragraph_id":"para_645"},{"text":"417 F.3d at 688; Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_646"},{"text":"773, 778–80 (2d Cir. 1995); Blaustein v. Huete, 449 F. App’x 347, 350–51 (5th","paragraph_id":"para_647"},{"text":"Cir. 2011).","paragraph_id":"para_648"},{"text":"22 No. 22-2813","paragraph_id":"para_649"},{"text":"In concluding that A.D. was not bound by the arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_650"},{"text":"clause, this court examined whether A.D. could be estopped","paragraph_id":"para_651"},{"text":"as a direct beneficiary of the cardholder agreement under Ne-","paragraph_id":"para_652"},{"text":"vada law. Id. at 1064. Credit One asserted A.D. “directly ben-","paragraph_id":"para_653"},{"text":"efitted under the cardholder agreement because [A.D.’s","paragraph_id":"para_654"},{"text":"mother] asked her to make purchases with the card,” and","paragraph_id":"para_655"},{"text":"therefore received the same benefit her mother received: “the","paragraph_id":"para_656"},{"text":"ability to use the credit card to make purchases.” Id. We disa-","paragraph_id":"para_657"},{"text":"greed, as the only benefit received with respect to the credit","paragraph_id":"para_658"},{"text":"card “was limited to following her mother’s directions to pick","paragraph_id":"para_659"},{"text":"up the smoothies that her mother had ordered previously.”","paragraph_id":"para_660"},{"text":"Id. We concluded that estoppel did not apply to bind A.D. to","paragraph_id":"para_661"},{"text":"arbitration because “A.D. had no relationship, contractual or","paragraph_id":"para_662"},{"text":"otherwise with Credit One.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_663"},{"text":"The benefit plaintiffs received here is more direct than the","paragraph_id":"para_664"},{"text":"benefit in A.D., which was completely indirect. All A.D. re-","paragraph_id":"para_665"},{"text":"ceived from her mother’s cardholder agreement was the abil-","paragraph_id":"para_666"},{"text":"ity to obtain products purchased with her mother’s card and","paragraph_id":"para_667"},{"text":"under her mother’s direction. Here, Ancestry processed each","paragraph_id":"para_668"},{"text":"plaintiff’s DNA and prepared analyses based on each plain-","paragraph_id":"para_669"},{"text":"tiff’s unique genetic profile. These analyses were available to","paragraph_id":"para_670"},{"text":"plaintiffs—through their guardians—if they chose to access","paragraph_id":"para_671"},{"text":"them.","paragraph_id":"para_672"},{"text":"But this benefit is still too indirect. As plaintiffs point out,","paragraph_id":"para_673"},{"text":"and Ancestry does not contest, there are no allegations sug-","paragraph_id":"para_674"},{"text":"gesting the plaintiffs even accessed their genetic analyses.","paragraph_id":"para_675"},{"text":"This makes the benefit similar to the benefit in A.D., and, as","paragraph_id":"para_676"},{"text":"noted above, dissimilar to the benefit in Everett. Ancestry has","paragraph_id":"para_677"},{"text":"not offered any Illinois (or other) authority to support the ap-","paragraph_id":"para_678"},{"text":"plication of estoppel where a non-signatory has access to a","paragraph_id":"para_679"},{"text":"benefit but there are no allegations or evidence that she has in","paragraph_id":"para_680"},{"text":"No. 22-2813 23","paragraph_id":"para_681"},{"text":"fact accessed it. Therefore, we agree with plaintiffs that the","paragraph_id":"para_682"},{"text":"benefit is too speculative and unrealized to trigger estoppel","paragraph_id":"para_683"},{"text":"under Illinois law.","paragraph_id":"para_684"},{"text":"ii. Recent Illinois appellate court decisions confirm this","paragraph_id":"para_685"},{"text":"reading.","paragraph_id":"para_686"},{"text":"Two more recent Illinois cases show the uphill climb An-","paragraph_id":"para_687"},{"text":"cestry faces for relief under Illinois law.","paragraph_id":"para_688"},{"text":"In Snyder, the plaintiff purchased a truck from Jack","paragraph_id":"para_689"},{"text":"Schmitt Ford, executing an Installment Loan Contract con-","paragraph_id":"para_690"},{"text":"taining an arbitration clause. 2022 WL 1197374, at *1. Things","paragraph_id":"para_691"},{"text":"devolved from there: Jack Schmitt Ford filed a complaint","paragraph_id":"para_692"},{"text":"against Snyder with an arbitrator, and Snyder and his wife","paragraph_id":"para_693"},{"text":"filed a 17-count complaint in Illinois state court asserting sev-","paragraph_id":"para_694"},{"text":"eral tort claims. Id. Jack Schmitt Ford sought to compel arbi-","paragraph_id":"para_695"},{"text":"tration, and the trial court agreed to compel arbitration of","paragraph_id":"para_696"},{"text":"Snyder’s claims, but not his wife’s claims, based on her non-","paragraph_id":"para_697"},{"text":"signatory status. Id. at *2.","paragraph_id":"para_698"},{"text":"On its cross-appeal, Jack Schmitt Ford argued that estop-","paragraph_id":"para_699"},{"text":"pel principles, including direct benefits estoppel, bound","paragraph_id":"para_700"},{"text":"Snyder’s wife to the Loan Contract and its arbitration clause.","paragraph_id":"para_701"},{"text":"Id. at *6–*10. The appellate court rejected this argument. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_702"},{"text":"The court recognized that courts (albeit not in Illinois) have","paragraph_id":"para_703"},{"text":"approved a theory of direct benefits estoppel where the non-","paragraph_id":"para_704"},{"text":"signatory requested enforcement of the underlying contract","paragraph_id":"para_705"},{"text":"itself. Id. at *8–*9 (discussing Int’l Paper Co. v. Schwabedissen","paragraph_id":"para_706"},{"text":"Maschinen & Anlagen GMBH, 206 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2000) and","paragraph_id":"para_707"},{"text":"In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2005)). And","paragraph_id":"para_708"},{"text":"Jack Schmitt Ford could not show that Snyder’s wife was re-","paragraph_id":"para_709"},{"text":"questing any enforcement of the contract at issue, as her","paragraph_id":"para_710"},{"text":"claims sounded in tort based on allegedly false statements","paragraph_id":"para_711"},{"text":"made to her husband’s employer. Id. at *8.","paragraph_id":"para_712"},{"text":"24 No. 22-2813","paragraph_id":"para_713"},{"text":"The Illinois Appellate Court also noted that a direct benefit","paragraph_id":"para_714"},{"text":"is “one contained within the provisions of the contract,” i.e.,","paragraph_id":"para_715"},{"text":"“one flowing directly from the agreement.” Id. at *8, *9. Exam-","paragraph_id":"para_716"},{"text":"ining the relevant documents, the court located “nothing in","paragraph_id":"para_717"},{"text":"the [Loan Contract that] provides [Snyder’s wife] with any di-","paragraph_id":"para_718"},{"text":"rect benefit.” Id. at *9. In fact, the court considered the connec-","paragraph_id":"para_719"},{"text":"tion between any benefit Snyder’s wife received and the Loan","paragraph_id":"para_720"},{"text":"Contract “even more nebulous” than the connection offered","paragraph_id":"para_721"},{"text":"in A.D. Id. And much like A.D.’s benefit—the ability to con-","paragraph_id":"para_722"},{"text":"sume goods purchased with her mother’s credit card—","paragraph_id":"para_723"},{"text":"Snyder’s wife derived a benefit “solely from her relationship","paragraph_id":"para_724"},{"text":"with [Snyder].” Id. at *10. Her use of his vehicle depended to-","paragraph_id":"para_725"},{"text":"tally on him, not any right provided by the Loan Contract. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_726"},{"text":"The second case, Peterson, concerned an arbitration agree-","paragraph_id":"para_727"},{"text":"ment included in Airbnb’s terms of service. 2023 WL 6166964,","paragraph_id":"para_728"},{"text":"at *1. The plaintiff was injured when a deck railing gave way","paragraph_id":"para_729"},{"text":"at a home booked by his friend through Airbnb. Id. at *2. Pe-","paragraph_id":"para_730"},{"text":"terson had an Airbnb account, so Airbnb argued he had pre-","paragraph_id":"para_731"},{"text":"viously agreed to its terms. Id. Peterson’s friend had booked","paragraph_id":"para_732"},{"text":"the house, however, and Peterson was not listed on the reser-","paragraph_id":"para_733"},{"text":"vation; he was simply attending a party his friend was hosting","paragraph_id":"para_734"},{"text":"on the property. Id. at *1–*2. The trial court refused to compel","paragraph_id":"para_735"},{"text":"arbitration. Id. at *1.","paragraph_id":"para_736"},{"text":"Airbnb appealed and argued that direct benefits estoppel","paragraph_id":"para_737"},{"text":"prevented Peterson from avoiding arbitration. Id. at *7.","paragraph_id":"para_738"},{"text":"Airbnb claimed that Peterson’s tort claims stemmed from the","paragraph_id":"para_739"},{"text":"benefits he received from his friend’s booking. Id. Relying on","paragraph_id":"para_740"},{"text":"Snyder, the court rejected this argument. Peterson’s negli-","paragraph_id":"para_741"},{"text":"gence claims did not rely on the terms the friend agreed to","paragraph_id":"para_742"},{"text":"when booking the property. And other than as an invitee to","paragraph_id":"para_743"},{"text":"No. 22-2813 25","paragraph_id":"para_744"},{"text":"the party, the plaintiff did not benefit from his friend’s book-","paragraph_id":"para_745"},{"text":"ing. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_746"},{"text":"Snyder and Peterson further persuade us that direct bene-","paragraph_id":"para_747"},{"text":"fits estoppel does not apply here. As in those cases, the plain-","paragraph_id":"para_748"},{"text":"tiffs here do not seek to enforce the Terms against Ancestry.","paragraph_id":"para_749"},{"text":"Rather, they seek to enforce the Illinois Genetic Information","paragraph_id":"para_750"},{"text":"Privacy Act against Ancestry. The grounds Illinois courts","paragraph_id":"para_751"},{"text":"have recognized that might allow direct benefits estoppel are","paragraph_id":"para_752"},{"text":"not present here.","paragraph_id":"para_753"},{"text":"After considering the authorities cited by the parties, those","paragraph_id":"para_754"},{"text":"discussed above, and those located in our search, we do not","paragraph_id":"para_755"},{"text":"agree with Ancestry that Illinois law binds plaintiffs as direct","paragraph_id":"para_756"},{"text":"beneficiaries of the Terms. Of the cases we could locate con-","paragraph_id":"para_757"},{"text":"sidering Illinois law, none applied direct benefits estoppel to","paragraph_id":"para_758"},{"text":"bind a non-signatory to a contract.","paragraph_id":"para_759"},{"text":"The record before us, without an allegation that plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_760"},{"text":"have accessed or used the analyses completed by Ancestry as","paragraph_id":"para_761"},{"text":"contemplated by the Terms, does not support applying direct","paragraph_id":"para_762"},{"text":"benefits estoppel. “Even assuming that [plaintiffs have] bene-","paragraph_id":"para_763"},{"text":"fited” from the Terms, the benefit of unused DNA analyses is","paragraph_id":"para_764"},{"text":"“too attenuated and indirect to force arbitration under an es-","paragraph_id":"para_765"},{"text":"toppel theory.” Zurich Am. Ins., 417 F.3d at 688. When coupled","paragraph_id":"para_766"},{"text":"with the strong presumption under Illinois law disfavoring","paragraph_id":"para_767"},{"text":"the binding of non-signatories to arbitration, we do not","paragraph_id":"para_768"},{"text":"conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it","paragraph_id":"para_769"},{"text":"declined to apply equitable grounds to compel plaintiffs to ar-","paragraph_id":"para_770"},{"text":"bitrate on the record before it.","paragraph_id":"para_771"},{"text":"A provision in the Terms designating minor children","paragraph_id":"para_772"},{"text":"whose guardians activate a DNA test kit on their behalf as","paragraph_id":"para_773"},{"text":"Ancestry users or parties to the Terms could lead to a different","paragraph_id":"para_774"},{"text":"26 No. 22-2813","paragraph_id":"para_775"},{"text":"result. Even if Ancestry’s future Terms include such lan-","paragraph_id":"para_776"},{"text":"guage, the Terms here do not.7 The limits of Illinois law can-","paragraph_id":"para_777"},{"text":"not be stretched to make up for that omission.","paragraph_id":"para_778"},{"text":"* * *","paragraph_id":"para_779"},{"text":"For the reasons above, we AFFIRM the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_780"},{"text":"denial of Ancestry’s motion to compel arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_781"},{"text":"7 Plaintiffs have argued that the lack of such a provision makes this an","paragraph_id":"para_782"},{"text":"easier case than A.D. Oral Arg. 21:35–22:10. In A.D., the cardholder agree-","paragraph_id":"para_783"},{"text":"ment detailed how someone could become an authorized user, binding","paragraph_id":"para_784"},{"text":"them to that agreement’s terms (though it was undisputed that neither","paragraph_id":"para_785"},{"text":"A.D. nor Credit One followed any step of that procedure). 885 F.3d at","paragraph_id":"para_786"},{"text":"1060–61. As plaintiffs argued, the Terms here do not contain any such pro-","paragraph_id":"para_787"},{"text":"vision by which a non-signatory becomes an Ancestry “User” bound to","paragraph_id":"para_788"},{"text":"the Terms. Id. at 22:10–22:20.","paragraph_id":"para_789"}],"word_count":6996,"cites":["556 U.S. 624","785 F.3d 1157","8 F.4th 631","863 F.3d 748","885 F.3d\n1054","417\nF.3d 682","90 F.4th 919","285 F.3d\n630","20 F. 4th 359","615 F.3d 735","764 F.3d 765","999 F.2d 206","771 F.3d 380","885 F.3d 1054","64 F.3d\n773","206 F.3d 411"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"2a714230b783d4b7f1e0f2e7de7800059103c99d835f6ab7218767bca3ade3b5","source_url":"https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2024/D02-15/C:22-2813:J:Brennan:aut:T:fnOp:N:3169026:S:0","fetched_at":"2026-10-16T13:15:15.7+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/93-f-4th-1014","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:93-f-4th-1014","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:93-f-4th-1014","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:93-f-4th-1014","neighbors":[],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"2a714230b783d4b7f1e0f2e7de7800059103c99d835f6ab7218767bca3ade3b5","recomputed_sha256":"2a714230b783d4b7f1e0f2e7de7800059103c99d835f6ab7218767bca3ade3b5","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-21T11:08:18.233Z"}},"hash":"sha256:7180be25c0bfb76f57dac74c86361649abbe563c06dcc0807db9d175da2ddfce","version":"legal-2026-10-21","expires":"2026-10-22T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-21+legal-2026-10-21+2026-10-21T10:08:17","content_hash":"sha256:7180be25c0bfb76f57dac74c86361649abbe563c06dcc0807db9d175da2ddfce","revalidate_after":"2026-10-21T12:08:18.753Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:93-f-4th-1014","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:93-f-4th-1014"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:93-f-4th-1014"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:93-f-4th-1014"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/93-f-4th-1014","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-d7fff363fb11984ff973e0674374b90d","response_hash":"sha256:7180be25c0bfb76f57dac74c86361649abbe563c06dcc0807db9d175da2ddfce"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T10:55:59.738Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3A93-f-4th-1014&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":35510}}