electronic receipts, that indicate that both Gillette and Mohamed clicked the ‘Yes, I agree” buttons on the Uber application, as depicted in the pictures above. See Colman Decl. Mohamed at ¶ 13-16; Colman Decl. Gillette at ¶ 12. Moreover, it is undisputed that Uber requires drivers to indicate acceptance of the relevant agreements before a driver can continue to use the Uber application, and it is similarly undisputed that both Gillette and Mohamed did, in fact, drive for Uber. Thus, Uber has submitted sufficiently probative evidence that Gillette and Mohamed took some affirmative step to indicate an assent to be bound (i.e., they clicked ‘Yes, I agree” on two separate application screens). See Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc., 2014 WL 2903752, at *7 (N.D.Cal. Jun. 25, 2014) (Koh, J.) (<HOLDING>) (citing Feldman v. Google, Inc., 513 F.Supp.2d
holding that an individuals access to a service or website that requires an indication of assent to contractual terms before access to the service or website will be granted was sufficient evidence that the user clicked i accept  holding that user access codes that facilitated access to a law enforcement database were properly redacted under exemption 7e holding that riminis claim that they had permission from their clients to access oracles  website is irrelevant under the state statutes holding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish an agency relationship for service to be effective holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service