On February 5, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a credit reporting company’s motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action which alleged that the company sold credit scores to consumers that differed from the scores the company provided to lenders due to contrasting credit scoring models. The plaintiff alleged this practice violated provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and Missouri Merchandizing Practices Act, and that the credit reporting company was negligent in failing to inform consumers of the conflicting scores. The credit reporting company sought to compel arbitration on the basis of arbitration terms embedded in language in an online purchase agreement. As part of the purchase process, the consumer had to click on an “I Agree” button after reading agreement language in a window with a scrolling text box. The court found clicking “I Agree” did not constitute assent to the language in the text box because there was a paragraph placed between the text box and the “I Agree” button authorizing the credit reporting company to access the consumer’s personal information. Here, the authorization language was “so explicit that it was reasonable for users to assume that their click merely constituted their assent to the authorization,” not to the terms in the scrollable text box. Because of the confusion about whether the consumer provided consent to the authorization language or to the online purchase agreement’s terms, the court found the arbitration clause unenforceable and allowed the lawsuit against the credit reporting company to move forward.