There's a bunch of people here commenting that clearly didn't read the ruling and are saying hyperbolic things like (made up example) "DoorDash can take your ho

There's a bunch of people here commenting that clearly didn't read the ruling and are saying hyperbolic things like (made up example) "DoorDash can take your house by silently updating the ToS to say if you don't tip, they can take your house". That's not what this says at all. The issue is here is quite narrow: it concerns if cases need to go to arbitration or not or if the Northern California district court has jurisdiction. This concerns a change in the ToS (in October 2023). So, first off, the notion that can enforce arbitrary terms this way is false. There's case law and legislation that the burden on the party seeking arbitration received assent for that and all this ruling does is say that sending the terms for that to the user-supplied email address combined with continued use of the app or website is sufficient to show that. It's really no different to say that if you send someone a letter then that qualifies as notice. If that goes to your spam folder or you choose not to read it, that's kind of your fault. But no, this isn't carte blanche to imply consent for any and all changes in ToS sent by email from continued use.