Ellis v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.
Terrace Ellis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:26-cv-01926
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 15
In Terrace Ellis v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., Judge Provinzino compelled individual arbitration and stayed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act case.
Terrace Ellis’s claims against UnitedHealth Group Inc. were ordered to individual arbitration, and the proposed class action was stayed; the court did not decide the merits of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims.
What happened
In Terrace Ellis v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., Terrace Ellis alleged that UnitedHealth, through a subsidiary, made automated calls about her health-plan benefits without her consent. She sought to represent two nationwide groups of people who received similar calls.
UnitedHealth argued that Ellis agreed to 2022 online-service terms requiring arbitration and waiving class actions. Ellis argued that later 2023 terms replaced those terms and did not require arbitration. The court concluded that the 2022 terms continued to govern users of the HealthSafe ID website and that Ellis’s claims related to that online service.
Judge Provinzino granted UnitedHealth’s motion to compel individual arbitration, directed the parties to proceed under the 2022 terms, and stayed the case pending arbitration. The parties must report the arbitration’s status every 90 days and notify the court when it ends.
The detailed version
- Ellis v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. · No. 0:26-cv-01926
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Sept. 11, 2026
Background
Terrace Ellis alleged that automated calls made by UnitedHealth through its subsidiary AbleTo violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. She alleged that the calls concerned benefits in her health plan, began around May 6, 2024, continued until January 17, 2025, and were made without her authorization or consent. She also alleged that her telephone number was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Ellis sought to represent two nationwide classes involving people who received similar automated calls.
UnitedHealth moved to compel arbitration and stay the case. The dispute centered on which online terms of service governed Ellis’s use of her HealthSafe ID account. The 2022 Online Services Terms of Service contained an arbitration provision and a class action waiver. The 2023 terms did not contain either provision, but UnitedHealth argued that they were posted on its general homepage rather than the HealthSafe ID website. UnitedHealth maintained that the 2022 terms remained on the HealthSafe ID website until June 18, 2025. Ellis argued that the 2023 terms replaced the 2022 terms because both addressed UnitedHealth’s online services.
Which Terms Governed
Applying Minnesota contract law, the court concluded that the 2022 terms governed Ellis’s use of the HealthSafe ID platform during the period relevant to her claims. Although the 2023 terms appeared to modify the 2022 terms in some respect, UnitedHealth’s objective conduct did not show an intent to replace the 2022 terms for HealthSafe ID users. The 2023 terms were posted on UnitedHealth’s general homepage, while the 2022 terms remained on the separate HealthSafe ID website. Ellis also was not prompted to re-consent to the 2023 terms when using HealthSafe ID.
The court therefore concluded that the 2022 terms, including their arbitration provision and class action waiver, applied to Ellis’s claims.
Scope of Arbitration Provision
The 2022 arbitration provision required arbitration of “any claims relating to” the terms of service or the Online Services. The court treated this as a broad arbitration provision. It concluded that Ellis’s claims related to the Online Services because the alleged calls concerned consent allegedly provided through the Consumer Communications Notice, which Ellis accepted when creating and using her HealthSafe ID account.
The court did not decide whether the Consumer Communications Notice actually established Ellis’s consent to receive the calls. It stated that question concerned the merits of the claims and was reserved for the arbitrator. The court also concluded that the 2022 class action waiver applied because the 2022 terms governed the dispute.
Disposition
The court GRANTED UnitedHealth Group Inc.’s Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. It directed the parties to proceed to individual arbitration under the 2022 Online Services Terms of Service and STAYED the case pending the outcome of that arbitration. The parties must jointly notify the court of the arbitration’s status within 90 days of the order and every 90 days afterward while arbitration remains pending. After arbitration ends, they must jointly inform the court whether further court action is necessary, including enforcement of an arbitration award or dismissal of the case.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.