Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Harsh Alkutkar v. Bumble, Inc. and Bumble Holding, Ltd.
Date: 10-15-2025
Case Number: 22-CV-422
Judge: Phyllis J. Hamilton
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Alameda County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Oakland Civil Litigation Law Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Oakland Commercial Litigation Lawyer Directory
Description:
Oakland, California, civil litigation lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a false advertising theory.
Bumble moved to compel arbitration, and the district court granted the motion
Alkutkar argues that this showing was insufficient because Bumble did not have an actual record of Alkutkar's click on the "I accept†button. But under California law, which the parties agree governs here, such a record is not required,
as "[a]n electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person.†Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.9(a). This act "may be shown in any manner.†Id. (emphasis added). Indeed, California courts have held that electronic signatures "can be authenticated by circumstantial evidence.†Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Grp., 232 Cal. App. 4th 836, 843 (2014) (citing People v. Skiles, 253 P.3d 546, 552 (Cal. 2011)). Therefore, Bumble's showing was sufficient under California law.
Bumble moved to compel arbitration, and the district court granted the motion
Alkutkar argues that this showing was insufficient because Bumble did not have an actual record of Alkutkar's click on the "I accept†button. But under California law, which the parties agree governs here, such a record is not required,
as "[a]n electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person.†Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.9(a). This act "may be shown in any manner.†Id. (emphasis added). Indeed, California courts have held that electronic signatures "can be authenticated by circumstantial evidence.†Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Grp., 232 Cal. App. 4th 836, 843 (2014) (citing People v. Skiles, 253 P.3d 546, 552 (Cal. 2011)). Therefore, Bumble's showing was sufficient under California law.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Harsh Alkutkar v. Bumble, Inc. and Bumble Holding, Ltd.?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard Harsh Alkutkar v. Bumble, Inc. and Bumble Holding, Ltd.?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Alameda County), CA. The presiding judge was Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Who were the attorneys in Harsh Alkutkar v. Bumble, Inc. and Bumble Holding, Ltd.?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Oakland Civil Litigation Law Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Oakland Commercial Litigation Lawyer Directory.
When was Harsh Alkutkar v. Bumble, Inc. and Bumble Holding, Ltd. decided?
This case was decided on October 15, 2025.