** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. Tievsky, Edelson PC, Chicago, Illinois, for PlaintiffAppellee. Andrews, Roger Perlstadt (argued), and Alexander G. Robbins, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, Washington, for Defendant-Appellant. COUNSEL Jaime Drozd Allen (argued), Stuart R. The panel held that the app user had neither actual notice nor constructive notice of the Terms of Use, and thus was not bound by Huuuge’s arbitration clause in the Terms. Under Washington law, the panel held that because Huuuge did not provide reasonable notice of its Terms of Use, the app user did not unambiguously manifest assent to the terms and conditions or the imbedded arbitration provision. SUMMARY ** Notice / Washington Law The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of HUUUGE Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration against a smartphone app user. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. Opinion by Judge McKeown * The Honorable Fernando J. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted AugSeattle, Washington Filed DecemBefore: M.

OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B.

3:18-cv-05276RBL HUUUGE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant. FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

Free chips huuuge casino