Trust me, that's how courts operate, and that's pretty much all we need to know unless and until Congress can be convinced to change the law (which is highly un

Trust me, that's how courts operate, and that's pretty much all we need to know unless and until Congress can be convinced to change the law (which is highly unlikely). In civil cases, on questions like this, courts go with the "more likely than not" standard of proof, as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in criminal cases. What courts generally don't do, once a party puts on sufficient evidence in support of its case, is speculate, without evidence, about alternatives that hypothetically could have occurred. So: To start off, the company will try to put on evidence from which reasonable people could conclude that the consumer did in fact click on "I agree." (That's known as a prima facie case.) But once that happens, as a practical matter it's on the consumer to refute the company's showing. Sure, the consumer could claim that his dog or his kid clicked on "I agree," or that he spilled his drink on the keyboard. But the court will pay no attention to that claim unless the consumer can put on evidence to that effect, for example by getting on the witness stand and testifying under oath (and penalty of perjury) that he personally saw it happen. And then the consumer will of course be subject to cross-examination by the company's counsel.