Case Explained: KAITLYN TRIMBLE v. ENTRATA, INC

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-11 The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Entrata, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration provision in the company’s online portal terms and conditions was unenforceable under Maryland law due to a lack of mutual consideration. The court applied the standard that an agreement lacks consideration and is never formed when it consists entirely of illusory promises. Specifically, the court found Entrata’s “Change Clause” rendered its promise to arbitrate illusory because it granted Entrata unfettered discretion to unilaterally modify the terms at any time without providing meaningful advance notice or a mechanism for users to reject changes before they took effect. The court reasoned that because the Terms bound users to any updated version simply by accessing the portal, and the “Notices Clause” only required posting updates on the site rather than providing direct notice, Entrata could effectively escape its contractual obligations at will while leaving users with no opportunity to end the agreement prior to a modification taking effect. Consequently, the arbitration agreement was deemed never to have been formed, allowing the underlying consumer protection lawsuit to proceed in federal court. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.