Rose v SpaceXAI LLC
AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.
Rose v SpaceXAI LLC is a proposed consumer class action concerning allegedly deceptive automatic renewal and cancellation practices for SuperGrok subscriptions. On October 22, 2026, Judge Noël Wise denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration because the account-creation page did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms of service. The ruling addresses contract formation and arbitration, rather than whether the alleged subscription practices were unlawful.[1]
Allegations and procedural history
As recounted in the order, Devin Rose created a free Grok account using his email address on March 11, 2025 and bought a $30 monthly SuperGrok subscription on July 12, 2025. He alleges that automatic renewal was not clear and that a difficult cancellation process left him paying for three additional months. His June 1, 2026 complaint seeks to represent similarly situated U.S. subscribers. These are allegations, not findings of deceptive conduct or class certification.[1]
The defendants moved to compel arbitration on August 13, 2026, relying on the terms displayed when Rose created the free account. Rose disputed that the signup screen adequately disclosed those terms. The court heard the motion on October 20 and denied it two days later.[1]
October 22, 2026 arbitration ruling
Applying California contract-formation principles, the court considered whether the signup process gave reasonable notice of the terms and whether the user unambiguously assented. It accepted that creating an account contemplated a continuing relationship in which users would expect terms, but held that this context did not cure the visual notice defects.[1]
The terms notice appeared below four signup choices and an existing-account sign-in message. Rose selected the second choice, email signup; the court reasoned that the remaining options and text fell outside his natural reading flow. It also considered the notice’s small, muted presentation and the absence of an affirmative acknowledgement comparable to the designs in cases cited by the defendants. The court adopted the notice analysis of Skaggs v. X.AI, LLC, which concerned an identical screen and a forum-selection clause.[1]
Because reasonably conspicuous notice was lacking, the court did not separately decide the parties’ arguments about action manifesting assent. The decision denies ECF 19 on that basis; it does not establish a general prohibition on arbitration clauses or resolve the merits of Rose’s consumer claims.[1]