Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

A consumer purchased a used vehicle from a dealership, with the transaction documented in two contracts: a purchase order and a retail installment sale contract (RISC). The purchase order included an arbitration provision for disputes arising from the purchase or financing of the vehicle, while the RISC detailed the financing terms but did not include an arbitration clause. The RISC contained an assignment clause by which the dealership assigned its interest in "this contract" (the RISC) to a third-party lender, and defined the agreement between the buyer and the assignee as consisting "only" of the RISC and any addenda. The consumer later filed a class action against the lender, alleging improper fees under Maryland law.The Circuit Court for Baltimore City found for the lender, ruling that the purchase order and RISC should be read together as one contract for the purposes of the transaction, and that the arbitration agreement was enforceable against the consumer. The court granted the lender’s motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed, holding that the consumer was bound by the arbitration provision and that the assignee lender could enforce it, even though the consumer did not receive or sign a separate arbitration agreement.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case, focusing on contract interpretation and the scope of the assignment. The court held that, even if the purchase order’s arbitration provision was binding between the consumer and the dealer, it was not within the scope of the assignment to the lender. The RISC’s assignment language made clear that only the RISC and its addenda, not the purchase order or its arbitration clause, were assigned to the lender. As a result, the Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lyles v. Santander Consumer USA" on Justia Law

A 2018 data breach at Barracuda Networks exposed protected health information of patients of Zoll Services LLC, a subsidiary of Zoll Medical Corporation. Zoll had contracted with Fusion LLC for data security services, and Fusion in turn relied on Barracuda’s technology. The agreements between these companies included certain liability and indemnification provisions, as well as a right for Barracuda to audit Fusion’s customer contracts. After the breach, Zoll settled a class action brought by its customers whose data was compromised.Following these events, Zoll initiated arbitration against Fusion and filed suit against Barracuda in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Fusion intervened and asserted additional claims against Barracuda. The district court dismissed most claims but allowed Zoll’s equitable indemnification claim and Fusion’s breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims to proceed. After arbitration and settlements, Axis Insurance Company, as assignee and subrogee of Zoll and Fusion, was substituted as plaintiff. Barracuda moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims, which the district court granted.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment rulings de novo. The appellate court held that Axis failed to present evidence of a relationship between Zoll and Barracuda that would support derivative or vicarious liability necessary for equitable indemnification under Massachusetts law. The court found that Fusion did not meet a condition precedent in its contract with Barracuda, and Barracuda had not waived or was estopped from asserting that condition. Further, Axis could not show that Barracuda breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as no relevant contractual right existed. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Barracuda on all claims. View "Axis Insurance Company v. Barracuda Networks, Inc." on Justia Law

Haamid Khan created an account with Coinbase, Inc., an online platform for buying, selling, and storing digital currencies. Khan alleged that Coinbase charged customers a hidden “Spread Fee” during transactions, which was not clearly disclosed to users. He claimed that the fee was only revealed if a customer clicked a tooltip icon and that the platform’s design misled less sophisticated users by imposing the fee only on those using the default trading option. Khan sought an injunction under California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws to prohibit Coinbase from continuing these practices.Coinbase responded by filing a petition in the City & County of San Francisco Superior Court to compel arbitration, citing a user agreement that included an arbitration clause and a waiver of class and public injunctive relief. The trial court denied Coinbase’s petition, finding that Khan’s claims sought public injunctive relief, which could not be waived or compelled to arbitration under California law, specifically referencing McGill v. Citibank, N.A. The court determined that the relief sought would benefit the public at large, not just Khan or a defined group of users.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that Khan’s complaint seeks public injunctive relief under the standards set forth in McGill. The court found that the arbitration agreement’s waiver of public injunctive relief was invalid and unenforceable. It concluded that Khan’s requested injunction would primarily benefit the general public by prohibiting ongoing deceptive practices, and thus, his claims could proceed in court rather than arbitration. The order denying Coinbase’s petition to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Kahn v. Coinbase, Inc." on Justia Law

Leslie Cruz made two purchases from the website operated by subsidiaries of Tapestry, Inc. in early 2024. She later filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging that the companies engaged in unfair competition and false advertising by promoting misleading sales discounts. Cruz claimed that the advertised sale reductions were deceptive because the merchandise was rarely, if ever, sold at the full price listed, and sought restitution and disgorgement of unjust enrichment resulting from these practices.The defendants moved to compel arbitration, relying on an arbitration clause in their website’s Terms of Use. The checkout pages on the website included a line of gray, small-font text below the order submission button stating that by clicking, the user agreed to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, with hyperlinks to those documents. The trial court, after reviewing screenshots of the checkout pages, found that the notice of the arbitration agreement was not sufficiently conspicuous. The court emphasized that the notice was less prominent than other visual elements on the page and that the transaction did not create an expectation of an ongoing contractual relationship governed by extensive terms. The court concluded that Cruz had not assented to the arbitration agreement and denied the motion to compel arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo. It held that the defendants failed to provide reasonably sufficient notice to Cruz that clicking the order button would bind her to the Terms of Use, including the arbitration provision. The court found that the design of the checkout pages did not adequately call attention to the notice text, and affirmed the trial court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Cruz v. Tapestry" on Justia Law

Joanne Sudakow entered into a contract with CleanChoice Energy, Inc. to purchase electricity. The initial agreement, which she accepted in October 2021, did not include an arbitration clause and specified that New York would be the exclusive venue for any lawsuits. About three weeks after the contract was executed, CleanChoice sent Sudakow a “Welcome Package” containing new terms, including an arbitration provision, but Sudakow did not sign or otherwise expressly assent to these new terms. She continued to pay for her electricity service until she terminated it in August 2022.Sudakow later filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging breach of contract and deceptive business practices by CleanChoice. CleanChoice moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the subsequently mailed terms. The district court denied the motion, finding that Sudakow did not have sufficient notice of the arbitration provision and had not assented to it.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo. The Second Circuit held that Sudakow was not bound by the arbitration provision because CleanChoice failed to provide clear and conspicuous notice of the new terms, and a reasonable person would not have understood that making payments constituted assent to those terms. The court also found that the language of the subsequent terms indicated that a signature was required for assent, which Sudakow never provided. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment denying CleanChoice’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Sudakow v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

Darrell J. Austin, Jr. filed a lawsuit against Experian Information Solutions, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Austin claimed that Experian reported inaccurate and derogatory information about his credit history, even after he had disputed the inaccuracies. He had enrolled in CreditWorks, a free online credit-monitoring service offered by an Experian affiliate, to understand why his credit applications were being denied despite the discharge of much of his debt through bankruptcy.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Experian’s motion to compel arbitration and excluded the declaration of David Williams, an Experian affiliate employee, which was submitted to support the motion. The court found that Williams lacked personal knowledge and relied on hearsay documents. Additionally, the court concluded that the CreditWorks enrollment page was deceptive and did not provide sufficient notice to Austin that he was agreeing to arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court found that the district court erred in excluding the Williams declaration, as Williams had adequately demonstrated personal knowledge of the enrollment process and the terms of use. The court also determined that the CreditWorks enrollment page provided clear and conspicuous notice of the terms of use, including the arbitration agreement, and that Austin had manifested assent to those terms by creating an account.The Fourth Circuit held that Experian had met its burden to establish the existence of a binding arbitration agreement and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Austin v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Carmen Lamonaco sued Experian Information Solutions, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act after a fraudulent auto loan appeared on her credit report. She claimed Experian failed to implement reasonable procedures to ensure credit report accuracy and did not conduct a proper reinvestigation. Experian moved to compel arbitration based on a clickwrap agreement that included an arbitration clause and a delegation clause. The District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the motion, concluding that Experian did not prove the existence of an agreement and had waived arbitration by engaging in litigation.The District Court found that Experian's declaration, which was based on internal records and described the enrollment process, lacked probative value because it did not attach the internal records or provide sufficient detail. The court also held that Experian waived its right to arbitration by participating in litigation activities such as answering the complaint, participating in a case management conference, and serving Rule 26 disclosures.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the District Court's decision. The appellate court held that Experian provided competent and unrebutted evidence that Lamonaco agreed to the Terms of Use, which included the arbitration clause. The court also determined that the delegation clause in the agreement assigned the question of waiver to the arbitrator, not the court. Therefore, the District Court lacked the authority to decide the waiver issue. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case with instructions to grant Experian's motion to compel arbitration. View "Lamonaco v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. (CAG) filed two lawsuits under Proposition 65 against Walmart Inc. and Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC (collectively, Walmart), alleging that Walmart failed to warn consumers about products containing chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Michael Marcus, CAG’s Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, purchased the products online as a corporate agent for CAG. During the purchase process, Marcus agreed to Walmart’s Terms of Use, which included an arbitration clause.In the Alameda County Superior Court, Walmart filed petitions to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement Marcus accepted. The trial court denied Walmart’s petitions, concluding that Walmart failed to prove the existence of an agreement to arbitrate Proposition 65 claims, as the arbitration agreement only addressed the rights of the individual consumer and did not preclude an action brought by the state.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to arbitrate a Proposition 65 claim against a seller of consumer products simply because an agent of the plaintiff previously agreed to arbitrate disputes with the seller when purchasing the products online. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s agent was not acting on behalf of the state, the real party in interest, when purchasing the products, and thus could not bind the state to arbitration. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court’s orders denying Walmart’s petitions to compel arbitration, as no agreement to arbitrate the Proposition 65 claims was formed. View "Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between several plaintiffs, who are foreign nationals participating in an au pair program, and Cultural Care, Inc., a Massachusetts company that places au pairs with host families in the U.S. The plaintiffs allege that Cultural Care violated their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various state wage and hour laws by failing to pay them legal wages. They also claim violations of state deceptive trade practices laws.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Cultural Care's motion to dismiss the complaint, including its defense of derivative sovereign immunity under Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Company. Cultural Care appealed, but the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, concluding that Cultural Care had not established entitlement to protection under Yearsley. After the case returned to the District Court, Cultural Care filed a motion to compel arbitration based on agreements in contracts signed by the au pairs with International Care Ltd. (ICL), a Swiss company. The District Court denied this motion, ruling that Cultural Care had waived its right to compel arbitration and that it could not enforce the arbitration agreement as a nonsignatory.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The court held that Cultural Care, as a nonsignatory to the ICL Contract, could not enforce the arbitration agreement under either third-party beneficiary theory or equitable estoppel. The court emphasized that the arbitration agreement did not demonstrate with "special clarity" that the signatories intended to confer arbitration rights on Cultural Care. Additionally, the plaintiffs' statutory claims did not depend on the ICL Contract, making equitable estoppel inapplicable. View "Posada v. Cultural Care, Inc." on Justia Law

Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado were involved in a motor vehicle collision with Crystal Krueger, who was driving a vehicle owned by Whataburger Restaurants LLC. Ferchichi sued Krueger and Whataburger for negligence. During mediation, Whataburger's counsel revealed the existence of a surveillance video of the plaintiffs, which they refused to share outside of mediation. Ferchichi filed a motion to compel the video and for sanctions. Whataburger responded with a motion to dismiss the sanctions request under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA).The trial court denied Whataburger's TCPA motion, but the Fourth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the motion for sanctions was a "legal action" under the TCPA and that Ferchichi failed to establish a prima facie case for the sanctions request. The court remanded the case to the trial court to award Whataburger its costs and attorney’s fees and to consider sanctions against Ferchichi.In a separate case, Haven at Thorpe Lane, a student-housing complex, was sued by students for fraud and deceptive trade practices. Haven filed a motion to compel discovery from two mothers of the plaintiffs, who had created a Facebook group criticizing Haven. The mothers filed a TCPA motion to dismiss Haven's motion to compel. The trial court denied the TCPA motion, but the Third Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the motion to compel was a "legal action" under the TCPA and that Haven failed to establish a prima facie case.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed both cases and held that motions to compel and for sanctions are not "legal actions" under the TCPA. Therefore, the TCPA does not apply. The court reversed the judgments of the courts of appeals and remanded both cases to the respective trial courts for further proceedings. View "HAVEN AT THORPE LANE, LLC v. PATE" on Justia Law