There are four styles of assenting to agreements on Internet sites: (1) browsewrap, where mere use of the site is taken as consent to the site’s terms and conditions, (2) signwrap, where the user’s entry into a transaction on the site is taken as consent to its terms and conditions, (3) clickwrap, where the user must click a statement that he has read or agrees to the site’s terms, and (4) scrollwrap, where the user must indicate consent to the site’s terms following a scrolled display of those terms.  Long v. Provide Commerce, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 855 holds that browsewrap is an insufficient indication of assent to bind the user.  Federal cases generally hold that clickwrap and scrollwrap are adequate to show the user’s consent to the site’s terms.  This decision holds that signwrap might work in some instances, particularly where the user is signing up for a longterm relationship with the site’s owner in which the user would expect there to be terms and conditions.  But in this instance, where the user signed up for a $5 trial and where the terms and conditions were not prominently displayed, the signwrap was insufficient to show consent to the terms which included an arbitratiaon clause with class action waiver.  The signwrap was particularly insufficient because the site apparently violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law (B&P Code 17600) which requires conspicuous notice if the site automatically signs the user up for an automatically renewing charge, as this oine did when a user chose to try the $5 trial.  The site’s disclosure of terms and conditions didn’t satisfy the ARL’s requirements or even the lesser general requirements for assuring that users would actually realize they would be bound by terms and conditions.