|
Compelling Arbitration - No Class Action |
|
Monday, 09 April 2012 |
|
Buyer
Had Adequate ‘Clickthrough' Notice of Terms
An
AT&T customer will have to arbitrate claims individually, rather than
pursue class claims in court, after a federal court decided March 26 that an
online “clickthrough†process provided adequate notice of an arbitration
agreement. The
plaintiff, Richard Sherman, sought to litigate an overcharge claim against
AT&T Inc. in federal district court on behalf of a class...The
online registration notice to the plaintiff did not explicitly mention the
arbitration clause, the court acknowledged. But it did say, “other conditions
and restrictions apply,â€
Buyer
Had Adequate ‘Clickthrough' Notice of Terms
An
AT&T customer will have to arbitrate claims individually, rather than
pursue class claims in court, after a federal court decided March 26 that an
online “clickthrough†process provided adequate notice of an arbitration
agreement.
The
plaintiff, Richard Sherman, sought to litigate an overcharge claim against
AT&T Inc. in federal district court on behalf of a class. He had purchased
residential internet service from AT&T over the phone, but prior to
activating the service the plaintiff had to register online. There, he clicked
a box that agreed to the terms of service, which provided for arbitration of
disputes. AT&T moved to compel arbitration.
The
plaintiff argued that the arbitration provision did not apply because he never
agreed to it, and he was unaware of its terms in any event. Judge Virginia M.
Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
disagreed and compelled arbitration.
The
online registration notice to the plaintiff did not explicitly mention the
arbitration clause, the court acknowledged. But it did say, “other conditions
and restrictions apply,†and it required the plaintiff to click his acceptance
of the terms in order to proceed. The court also rejected arguments that the
contract was procedurally unconscionable and lacked mutuality (Sherman v. AT&T
Inc., N.D.
Ill., No. 1:11-cv-05857, 3/26/12). Sherman v. AT&T
|
Home 
