Quamina v. JustAnswer LLC

Background

This putative class action concerns allegations that JustAnswer enrolled the named plaintiffs in recurring paid memberships without their consent. JustAnswer moved under the Federal Arbitration Act to require arbitration based on an arbitration clause in its Terms of Service.

The court considered the sign-up process for Jessica Quamina, Tasha Davis, Kristie Nelson, Kseniya Godun, Moya McDowell, Renee Pettit, and Latoya Foust. The parties did not dispute the contents of the screenshots showing the pages users saw. The plaintiffs stated that they had not signed or checked a box agreeing to the Terms of Service and, for most plaintiffs, had not viewed or received a copy of those terms.

The Terms of Service also contained a class-action waiver and a delegation clause. The delegation clause gave the arbitrator authority to decide whether a claim was subject to arbitration.

Contract Formation

Under California law, an online agreement is enforceable when the user receives reasonably noticeable information about the terms and clearly indicates agreement. The court said a trial was unnecessary because there was no material factual dispute about what the plaintiffs saw when they signed up.

The court found that Kseniya Godun did not receive legally sufficient notice on the landing page. The Terms of Service link appeared in very small text on a cluttered page and was identified mainly by underlining.

The court also found that Tasha Davis and Kristie Nelson did not agree to arbitrate on their payment pages. The notice was barely legible, and the hyperlinks were not sufficiently distinguished from the surrounding text.

The court reached the same result for Kseniya Godun, Moya McDowell, and Latoya Foust. Their payment pages used an already-checked box and a “Connect now” button. The court found that the users were not required to affirmatively check the box and that “Connect now” did not tell them that clicking the button would create a binding agreement.

Renee Pettit’s page was different. Her Terms of Service link appeared directly above the sign-up button in underlined bright-blue text. The page stated that clicking “Confirm now” meant agreeing to the Terms of Service. The court found that Pettit’s click was an unambiguous indication of assent.

The court rejected JustAnswer’s reliance on welcome emails, text messages, and the chat interface as additional notice. The email came after the membership was formed and discussed membership renewal rather than clearly stating that continued use would bind the user to the Terms of Service. The text messages were sent after sign-up and did not need to be opened to use the service. The chat interface linked first to a disclaimer and then to a separate Terms of Service page, which the court found too indirect. The court also rejected JustAnswer’s argument that several individually inadequate notices could be combined to create sufficient notice.

Scope and Delegation

Pettit argued that her claims were outside the arbitration clause and that the arbitration agreement was invalid or unconscionable. The court found that the delegation clause clearly and unmistakably assigned questions about the scope of arbitration to the arbitrator.

Pettit did not show that the delegation clause itself was invalid. Her arguments that the overall arbitration agreement was invalid, unconscionable, or induced by alleged misrepresentations concerned the agreement as a whole. The court therefore left those issues for the arbitrator rather than deciding them.

Disposition

The court ordered Renee Pettit’s claims to arbitration. It dismissed Jessica Quamina as a plaintiff. The court stated that arbitration, and a stay or dismissal of the case, was otherwise denied.