Consumer Contracts Posts
In the defining decision, Cullilane v. Uber Technologies, the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s grant of Uber Technologies’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint of a putative class action brought by users of Uber’s ride-sharing service in the Boston area. At issue in the case was the enforceability of an online contract’s arbitration clause. This decision strongly reinforces the notion that online contract processes should be designed, and the information arranged, for consumers and with extreme attention to detail and a focus on clarity of meaning.
At its meeting in Philadelphia on January 18 and 19, the Council reviewed drafts for several projects, with the following outcomes:
Ninth Circuit Deems Amazon’s Conditions of Use Enforceable, Plaintiff’s Deceptive Pricing Claims ArbitrableMichael P. Daly and Ashley M. Super
The Ninth Circuit’s no-nonsense decision recognizes that, under basic principles of contract law, online consumer contracts may be enforced so long as notice is conspicuous and acceptance is unambiguous. It is an important win not only for but also retailers generally.
Second Circuit Issues Important Decision Regarding Online Contract Formation and Arbitration AgreementsMichael P. Daly
Last year, the Southern District of New York refused to enforce Uber’s Terms of Service because it believed that the agreement’s placement was inconspicuous and the consumer’s acceptance was ambiguous. Last week, the Second Circuit vacated that order and found that the agreement had been reasonably disclosed and unambiguously accepted.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued a final rule “governing the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements by providers of consumer financial products and services.”
This post is a presentation of information found in the Discussion Draft of the Consumer Contracts project. This will be presented at the 2017 Annual Meeting for discussion only.
Reporter Omri Ben-Shahar discusses the scope of the project and the asymmetry in information, sophistication, and stakes between the parties to these contracts that the Restatement must consider.
In Noble v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., the plaintiff, after purchasing a smartwatch that advertised “24 to 48 hours with typical use,” found that the device’s batter only lasted for a few hours. When he determined that other customers were experiencing the same issue, he filed a class action complaint in federal court. Samsung then sought to compel arbitration based on a clause in the “Health and Safety and Warranty Guide,” which is included in every box when purchased.