Jordan v. Best Buy Co., Inc.

Background

Jewel Jordan and Michael Walsh sued Best Buy over economic losses allegedly connected to recalled Insignia pressure cookers. Jordan bought a six-quart cooker from a store in Illinois in 2022 and later received a replacement inner pot and locking valve. Walsh bought an eight-quart cooker from a store in California in 2022, requested a refund instead of a smaller replacement pot, and received neither a replacement nor a refund.

Jordan separately bought an air fryer from BestBuy.com on September 20, 2022. Best Buy’s online terms included an arbitration agreement requiring disputes involving the customer and Best Buy to be resolved through individual arbitration, subject to exceptions the court found inapplicable. The terms also prohibited bringing claims as a class representative or class member. Customers could become subject to the terms by joining the My Best Buy program, creating a BestBuy.com account, or making an online purchase as a guest.

Best Buy moved to compel arbitration of Jordan’s claims and to strike the class allegations as to both Jordan and Walsh. The court considered evidence outside the pleadings and treated the motion to compel arbitration as a motion for summary judgment, which is decided when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Jordan’s Arbitration Agreement

The court analyzed whether Jordan had agreed to arbitrate and whether the agreement covered her pressure-cooker dispute. It determined that the website terms were more like a browsewrap agreement than a clickwrap agreement because Jordan did not affirmatively click a box stating that she accepted the terms. For a browsewrap agreement to be enforceable, the user must have actual notice or inquiry notice—that is, the website must reasonably alert a careful user that terms apply.

The court found that Jordan had inquiry notice. The terms appeared in readable text directly above the “Place Your Order” button, and the words linking to the terms were blue and conspicuous. By completing the air-fryer purchase, Jordan therefore assented to the terms, even though she declared that she did not see or review them.

The arbitration clause broadly covered disputes arising out of or relating in any way to the customer’s relationship or interaction with Best Buy, including product purchases. The court held that this language covered Jordan’s pressure-cooker claims even though she accepted the terms after buying the pressure cooker. The court therefore found a valid arbitration agreement that covered Jordan’s dispute and granted Best Buy’s motion to compel arbitration as to Jordan.

Class Allegations

The court explained that class allegations may be struck before a formal class-certification motion when it is apparent from the pleadings that a class cannot be certified and allowing the allegations to remain would cause unnecessary litigation.

As to Jordan, the court held that the class-action waiver in the terms barred her from pursuing the claims as a class representative or class member. The court granted Best Buy’s motion to strike Jordan’s class allegations.

As to Walsh, the court found that he had not joined the My Best Buy program, created a BestBuy.com account, or made an online purchase as a guest. He therefore was not subject to Best Buy’s terms. The court considered Best Buy’s argument that individual inquiries would be needed to determine which proposed class members had accepted the terms.

The court concluded that the proposed class was not clearly impossible to certify at this stage. It found that checking online databases for a potential class member’s purchase or membership history was not a significant individualized inquiry. The court also found that the proposed class was not clearly deficient on commonality or typicality grounds and could potentially satisfy the requirements for a class seeking injunctive or declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2). Because Rule 23(b)(2) presented the higher barrier, the court did not separately analyze possible certification under Rule 23(b)(3). The court denied Best Buy’s motion to strike Walsh’s class allegations.

Disposition

The court ordered that:

- Best Buy’s motion to compel arbitration of Jordan’s claims was granted. - Best Buy’s motion to strike Jordan’s class allegations was granted. - Best Buy’s motion to strike Walsh’s class allegations was denied. - The case was stayed as to Jordan’s individual claims pending resolution through arbitration.