Schleppenbach: Courts Hold Posted Notices of Agreement to Arbitrate Can Be Binding
Mutual assent is key for establishing that parties have agreed to resolve their disputes outside of the courtroom. Shook Partner Jay Schleppenbach has published an article examining a Colorado court ruling that posted signs can create a binding arbitration agreement in the August 2026 issue of the Illinois State Bar Association’s In the Alternative newsletter.
In “Just Give Me a Sign: Courts Hold Posted Notices of Agreement to Arbitrate Can Be Binding,” Schleppenbach says that the central issue of the case was that a number of signs posted at the entrances, exits and pay stations of several parking lots informed parkers that parking was subject to certain rules enforcement that could be monitored by license plate recognition technology, and failure to follow rules could result in fees, towing or booting.
Additionally, the signs stated that by parking in the lots, parkers agreed that the sole remedy for an unresolved dispute is binding arbitration and they waived the right to a jury trial, class action or class arbitration. The plaintiffs sought to bring a class action against the operator of the parking lots, and the operator moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion, concluding there was a valid agreement to arbitrate because the signs were clearly posted, numerous and obvious, and set forth the arbitration clause in no uncertain terms, Schleppenbach says. Schleppenbach also highlights other similar cases in Colorado and Texas.
“So, although arbitration is a creature of contract, just like any other type of contract an arbitration agreement may validly be entered into through conduct as opposed to just a signed agreement,” Schleppenbach says. “As with online agreements, challenges to agreements formed through posted signage may fail if the notice of the terms was conspicuous and the party engaged in conduct consistent with accepting them.”
In “Just Give Me a Sign: Courts Hold Posted Notices of Agreement to Arbitrate Can Be Binding,” Schleppenbach says that the central issue of the case was that a number of signs posted at the entrances, exits and pay stations of several parking lots informed parkers that parking was subject to certain rules enforcement that could be monitored by license plate recognition technology, and failure to follow rules could result in fees, towing or booting.
Additionally, the signs stated that by parking in the lots, parkers agreed that the sole remedy for an unresolved dispute is binding arbitration and they waived the right to a jury trial, class action or class arbitration. The plaintiffs sought to bring a class action against the operator of the parking lots, and the operator moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion, concluding there was a valid agreement to arbitrate because the signs were clearly posted, numerous and obvious, and set forth the arbitration clause in no uncertain terms, Schleppenbach says. Schleppenbach also highlights other similar cases in Colorado and Texas.
“So, although arbitration is a creature of contract, just like any other type of contract an arbitration agreement may validly be entered into through conduct as opposed to just a signed agreement,” Schleppenbach says. “As with online agreements, challenges to agreements formed through posted signage may fail if the notice of the terms was conspicuous and the party engaged in conduct consistent with accepting them.”
