Real Safety AI Foundation / Research

Children, Schools, and Youth Policy

The Consent That Never Was: Children, Clickwrap Non-Formation, and the Age Verification Statutes as Legislative Admission

Publisher: Real Safety AI Foundation

Working draft. Not peer reviewed.

Written
July 2026
Version
v0.1
Pages
30
Download PDFPlain language slides (PDF)Export BibTeXExport RIS

Abstract

Every day, children click I Agree. Courts, legislatures, and the platforms themselves have converged on a shared description of what happens in that moment: a contract forms, voidable at the child’s election under the infancy doctrine. That description is doing enormous work. Because the infancy doctrine treats the child’s contract as formed and merely voidable, the child’s challenge is a validity challenge, and under the Federal Arbitration Act’s severability regime a validity challenge belongs to the arbitrator. Between 2021 and 2026, federal courts relied on exactly this chain to send children’s claims against Snap, StockX, Temu, Epic Games, Roblox, and Microsoft into the arbitral forums those companies drafted, behind the class waivers those companies drafted, under the delegation clauses those companies drafted. This Article argues that the chain fails at its first link. The question the infancy doctrine answers, what a child may do about a contract that exists, is downstream of a question the courts compelling these children have not been asked: whether the interaction produced a contract at all. Mutual assent is measured objectively, against what the offeror knows or has reason to know about the party on the other side of the interface. A platform that designs for, markets to, and profits from an audience it knows includes children cannot reasonably read a child’s tap as a manifestation of assent to thousands of words of undisclosed terms, and the inquiry notice standard the online contract cases apply, calibrated to the reasonably prudent adult user, returns no answer at all when the user is nine. A defect of that kind is a formation defect. Under Buckeye, Granite Rock, and the Act itself, formation belongs to the court, and no delegation clause can reach it, because until a contract exists there is nothing to delegate. The Article then identifies a source of support the formation argument has never had before: the legislatures. Texas’s App Store Accountability Act, in force since June 2026 and left in

Keywords

  • contract formation
  • mutual assent
  • infancy doctrine
  • minors
  • clickwrap
  • arbitration
  • delegation clauses
  • Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
  • Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
  • K.F.C. v. Snap Inc
  • App Store Accountability Act
  • COPPA

Plain language slides

First slide of the plain language summary of The Consent That Never Was: Children, Clickwrap Non-Formation, and the Age Verification Statutes as Legislative AdmissionOpen the 23-slide summary (PDF)

Suggested citation

Gilly, Travis. "The Consent That Never Was: Children, Clickwrap Non-Formation, and the Age Verification Statutes as Legislative Admission." Real Safety AI Foundation Working Draft, July 2026. https://realsafetyai.org/research/consent-that-never-was/

Other versions

This paper is also posted on SSRN.

SSRN version

References (73)

This paper cites its sources in footnotes. Each authority is listed once, where it is first cited, with its footnote number.

  1. Footnote 1.Students Engaged in Advancing Tex. v. Paxton, No. 25A1389 (U.S. July 6, 2026)
  2. Footnote 1.Comput. & Commc’ns Indus. Ass’n v. Paxton, No. 25A1390 (U.S. July 6, 2026) (orders denying applications to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the preliminary injunction).
  3. Footnote 1.Supreme Court Clears the Way: Texas’s App Store Accountability Act Is Now Enforceable, Lexology (July 8, 2026), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=60cfedda-77a9-4539-b439-a68c4f42b52a (last visited July 9, 2026).
  4. Footnote 2.Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 121.021–.022, enacted by Act of May 27, 2025, S.B. 2420, 89th Leg., R.S. (Tex. 2025) (the App Store Accountability Act, codified at Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 121).
  5. Footnote 2.Texas App Store Age-Verification Law (SB 2420) Takes Effect, Recording Law (June 7, 2026), https://www.recordinglaw.com/news/texas-app-store-age-verification-sb-2420/ (last visited July 9, 2026).
  6. Footnote 4.Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 14 (Am. L. Inst. 1981) (natural persons under eighteen have capacity to incur only voidable contractual duties)
  7. Footnote 4.see, e.g., K.F.C. v. Snap Inc., 29 F.4th 835, 837 (7th Cir. 2022) (“Illinois treats such agreements as voidable, which means that children may elect how to proceed once they come of age.”)
  8. Footnote 4.I.C. v. StockX, LLC, 19 F.4th 873, 881 (6th Cir. 2021) (Michigan law; a minor’s contract “is voidable” and “an executed voidable contract of an infant is valid until disaffirmed”) (citations omitted).
  9. Footnote 5.Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 445–46 (2006) (unless the challenge is to the arbitration clause itself, the validity of the contract is for the arbitrator in the first instance)
  10. Footnote 5.Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 297 (2010) (a court may order arbitration “only where the court is satisfied that the parties agreed to arbitrate that dispute,” and must resolve “any issue that calls into question the formation or applicability of the specific arbitration clause”)
  11. Footnote 5.9 U.S.C. § 4 (court may compel arbitration “upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration . . . is not in issue”).
  12. Footnote 8.S.T.G. v. Epic Games, Inc., 752 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1203–04 (S.D. Cal. 2024).
  13. Footnote 9.Ziboukh v. Whaleco Inc., 795 F. Supp. 3d 349 (E.D.N.Y. 2025).
  14. Footnote 10.Tomlin v. Roblox Corp., No. 2:25-cv-04301 (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2026) (order granting motions to compel arbitration and staying litigation as to all defendants pending arbitration).
  15. Footnote 14.Cal. Fam. Code § 6700
  16. Footnote 14.C.W. v. Epic Games, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2020).
  17. Footnote 15.Cal. Fam. Code § 6710.
  18. Footnote 15.Celli v. Sports Car Club of Am., Inc., 29 Cal. App. 3d 511, 517 (1972)
  19. Footnote 15.Berg v. Traylor, 148 Cal. App. 4th 809, 820 (2007)
  20. Footnote 18.Berg v. Traylor, 148 Cal. App. 4th 809, 818 (2007) (quoting Niemann v. Deverich, 98 Cal. App. 2d 787, 793 (1950)), quoted in I.B. ex rel.
  21. Footnote 18.Fife v. Facebook, Inc., 905 F. Supp. 2d 989, 1000 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
  22. Footnote 19.I.B., 905 F. Supp. 2d at 1001 (quoting Deck v. Spartz, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-01123, 2011 WL 7775067 (E.D. Cal. 2011), and Burnand v. Irigoyen, 30 Cal. 2d 861, 866 (1947)).
  23. Footnote 20.Cal. Fam. Code § 6701(c)
  24. Footnote 20.In re Apple In-App Purchase Litig., 855 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1035–36 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (declaratory claim that minors’ in-app currency purchases are voidable survived dismissal).
  25. Footnote 21.I.B., 905 F. Supp. 2d at 1003 (quoting Holland v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 270 Cal. App. 2d 417, 421 (1969))
  26. Footnote 22.De Young v. Facebook, Inc., 621 F. App’x 488, 489 (9th Cir. 2015).
  27. Footnote 23.Dawes v. Facebook, Inc., 885 F. Supp. 2d 894, 899 (S.D. Ill. 2012).
  28. Footnote 24.A.V. v. iParadigms, LLC, 544 F. Supp. 2d 473, 481 (E.D. Va. 2008) (quoting 5 Williston on Contracts § 9:14 (4th ed. 2007)) (minor students who submitted papers through a plagiarism-detection clickwrap could not void it while retaining its benefits), aff’d on other grounds, 562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009).
  29. Footnote 27.Jonathan A. Obar & Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch, The Biggest Lie on the Internet: Ignoring the Privacy Policies and Terms of Service Policies of Social Networking Services, 23 Info., Commc’n & Soc’y 128 (2020) (experimental participants overwhelmingly skipped or skimmed policies; a large majority accepted terms that included surrendering a first-born child), https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1486870 (last visited July 9, 2026).
  30. Footnote 28.Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 236–37 (2d Cir. 2016) (purchase page with “between fifteen and twenty-five links,” text “in at least four font sizes and six colors,” and notice “not directly adjacent” to the order button did not establish reasonable notice as a matter of law even for adult users).
  31. Footnote 29.Masooda Bashir, Carol Hayes, April D. Lambert & Jay P. Kesan, Online Privacy and Informed Consent: The Dilemma of Information Asymmetry, 52 Proc. Ass’n for Info. Sci. & Tech. 1 (2016) (survey evidence that users “not only do . . . not read privacy policies, they likely would not be able to understand them if they did”), https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010043 (last visited July 9, 2026).
  32. Footnote 30.Michel Walrave & Wannes Heirman, Adolescents, Online Marketing and Privacy: Predicting Adolescents’ Willingness to Disclose Personal Information for Marketing Purposes, 27 Child. & Soc’y 434 (2012) (minors’ ability to assess the purposes of online marketing and personal data processing is limited and further complicated by the blurring of commercial and entertainment content), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2011.00423.x (last visited July 9, 2026).
  33. Footnote 31.Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 403–04 (1967).
  34. Footnote 33.Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 72 (2010)
  35. Footnote 36.First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943 (1995) (arbitration resolves “only those disputes . . . that the parties have agreed to submit”).
  36. Footnote 38.Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Container Store, Inc., 904 F.3d 70, 82–83 (1st Cir. 2018).
  37. Footnote 39.I.C., 19 F.4th 873 (even the broadest delegation provision cannot send formation to the arbitrator; courts decide challenges to the “existence of an agreement in the first instance” (quoting In re Auto. Parts Antitrust Litig., 951 F.3d 377, 385 (6th Cir. 2020)))
  38. Footnote 39.Boykin v. Family Dollar Stores of Mich., LLC, 3 F.4th 832, 843–44 (6th Cir. 2021) (courts “must decide this formation question” regardless of what the alleged contract says).
  39. Footnote 40.9 U.S.C. § 2 (a written provision “in” a contract to arbitrate a controversy “arising out of such contract”)
  40. Footnote 43.I.C., 19 F.4th 873 (Moore, J., dissenting).
  41. Footnote 47.S.G. v. Epic Games, Inc., 796 F. Supp. 3d 614 (N.D. Cal. 2025).
  42. Footnote 48.Tomlin, No. 2:25-cv-04301 (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2026).
  43. Footnote 50.Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493, 502–03, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954) (“the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts”).
  44. Footnote 52.In re Apple In-App Purchase Litig., 855 F. Supp. 2d at 1035–36 (minors’ purchases of in-app game currency)
  45. Footnote 53.C.M.D., 621 F. App’x 488
  46. Footnote 53.K.F.C., 29 F.4th 835
  47. Footnote 55.15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA)
  48. Footnote 55.16 C.F.R. pt. 312 (the COPPA Rule, including the multifactor test for whether a service is directed to children).
  49. Footnote 56.Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 121.021
  50. Footnote 57.Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66, 74–75 (2d Cir. 2017)
  51. Footnote 57.Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1176–77 (9th Cir. 2014)
  52. Footnote 57.Specht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 30 (2d Cir. 2002)
  53. Footnote 57.Sgouros v. TransUnion Corp., 817 F.3d 1029, 1034–35 (7th Cir. 2016)
  54. Footnote 57.Berkson v. Gogo LLC, 97 F. Supp. 3d 359, 401–03 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).
  55. Footnote 61.Sgouros, 817 F.3d 1029
  56. Footnote 61.Meyer, 868 F.3d 66
  57. Footnote 61.Nicosia, 834 F.3d 220 (cluttered purchase page did not establish reasonable notice as a matter of law even for adults).
  58. Footnote 66.Container Store, 904 F.3d 70
  59. Footnote 67.Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 304 F.3d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 2002).
  60. Footnote 70.Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 121.022
  61. Footnote 71.Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 121.021–.022
  62. Footnote 72.Comput. & Commc’ns Indus. Ass’n v. Paxton, No. 25-51073 (5th Cir. June 4, 2026) (stay pending appeal, superseding a May 28 administrative stay)
  63. Footnote 72.Comput. & Commc’ns Indus. Ass’n v. Paxton, No. 1:25-cv-01660-RP (W.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2025) (preliminary injunction)
  64. Footnote 72.Fifth Circuit Keeps Texas App Store Law Alive, Tex. Pol’y Rsch. (June 5, 2026), https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/fifth-circuit-keeps-texas-app-store-law-alive/ (last visited July 9, 2026).
  65. Footnote 73.Amy Howe, Texas Asks Court To Leave in Place Age-Verification and Parental-Consent Law on Apps, SCOTUSblog (June 22, 2026), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/texas-asks-court-to-leave-in-place-age-verification-and-parental-consent-law-on-apps/ (last visited July 9, 2026).
  66. Footnote 74.Supra note . The challengers’ theories sound in speech: that the Act is a content-based restriction subjected to the wrong tier of scrutiny.
  67. Footnote 76.Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule, 90 Fed. Reg. 16918 (Apr. 22, 2025) (codified at 16 C.F.R. pt. 312) (effective June 23, 2025; compliance by April 22, 2026, for most provisions)
  68. Footnote 76.COPPA Rule Amendment Compliance Deadline Approaches, Hunton Andrews Kurth (Apr. 23, 2026), https://www.hunton.com/privacy-and-cybersecurity-law-blog/coppa-rule-amendment-compliance-deadline-approaches (last visited July 9, 2026).
  69. Footnote 78.16 C.F.R. § 312.5 (verifiable parental consent).
  70. Footnote 80.Brown v. Entm’t Merchs. Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (2011).
  71. Footnote 86.AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (enforceability of class waivers within arbitration agreements under the FAA).
  72. Footnote 98.Unpacking the FTC’s COPPA Amendments: What You Need To Know, White & Case LLP, https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/unpacking-ftcs-coppa-amendments-what-you-need-know (last visited July 9, 2026)
  73. Footnote 98.90 Fed. Reg. 16918.

All research