In today’s digital marketplace, direct sellers rely heavily on electronic agreements to govern their relationships with customers, vendors, and partners. But whether these electronic agreements are enforceable depends, at least in part, on how your policies and other terms are presented to users and the way assent is obtained. Courts scrutinize these issues closely, emphasizing that even minor design choices can make the difference between a binding electronic agreement and an unenforceable set of terms.

A September 24, 2025 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia opinion in the case of Radtke v. U.S. Bureau of Customs & Border Protection casts further light on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection ruling process relating to the Jones Act. 

On September 17, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or the Commission) released a policy statement (the Policy Statement) addressing its approach to mandatory arbitration provisions in the governing documents of companies intending to go public (each, an Issuer).