Vargison v. Paula's Choice, LLC: Date Argued: February 9th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-2452

Case Summary:

In the case of Vargison v. Paula's Choice, LLC (Docket No. 25-2452), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 9, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows:

The case is a putative class action brought by consumers alleging that the skincare company, Paula's Choice, falsely advertised its products as "cruelty-free" and "never tested on animals."

The plaintiffs contend that these representations were deceptive because the company sold its products in mainland China, where animal testing was legally mandated for foreign cosmetics during the class period.

A significant factual development occurred when Paula's Choice updated its website's Terms of Use in March 2023 to include a mandatory arbitration clause and a class action waiver.

The company moved to compel arbitration for several named plaintiffs, arguing that any purchases made after the updated terms were posted constituted assent to the arbitration agreement.

The district court granted the motion for certain plaintiffs who made purchases after the motion to compel was filed, finding they had received sufficient notice through the litigation itself.

The primary issue on appeal involves Plaintiff Samantha Simmons, for whom the district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding that her specific purchase timeline did not establish clear assent to the new terms.

The appellate court is reviewing whether the website's design provided "reasonably conspicuous notice" of the arbitration clause to prevent consumers from being "clawed back" into individual arbitration for claims that accrued before the terms were updated.

During the oral arguments on February 9, 2026, the panel in Seattle focused on the sufficiency of the website's hyperlink placement and whether the company's "browsewrap" or "clickwrap" agreements met the Ninth Circuit's standards for enforceability.