Cooper v. Adobe Systems Incorporated

Background

David Keith Cooper, a commercial photographer, videographer, and video editor, alleged that Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2017.1 malfunctioned when he used its “Clean Cache” function. According to the complaint, the program permanently deleted files on Cooper’s external hard drive that had not been referenced or opened within the previous 90 days, including files that were not imported into or generated by the program. Cooper alleged claims for negligence, strict products liability, violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and restitution or unjust enrichment, on behalf of himself and a proposed class.

Adobe moved to compel arbitration, dismiss the class claims, and stay the case. Cooper did not dispute that he accepted Adobe’s General Terms of Use while using Lightroom, but argued that Adobe had not shown he agreed to arbitrate disputes concerning Premiere Pro.

Arbitration Agreement

Adobe’s General Terms of Use applied to Adobe’s services and software, including Creative Cloud applications. The terms required disputes relating to the terms, services, or software to be resolved through final and binding arbitration, except when a claim qualified for small-claims court. They also prohibited claims brought as a class, consolidated, or representative action.

The court found that Adobe’s evidence showed Cooper was presented with the terms while using Lightroom and affirmatively clicked a box stating, “I have read and agree to” the terms. Because Cooper did not challenge those factual statements, the court held that Adobe had shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the parties formed an arbitration agreement. The court explained that whether the agreement covered Cooper’s Premiere Pro claims was a scope question rather than a formation question.

Delegation of Arbitrability

The terms incorporated the JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules. JAMS Rule 11(b) assigns disputes about the formation, existence, validity, interpretation, or scope of an arbitration agreement to the arbitrator. The court held that incorporating those rules was clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to delegate arbitrability questions—meaning questions about whether a dispute must be arbitrated—to the arbitrator.

The court therefore left to the arbitrator the question whether Cooper’s use of Premiere Pro was covered by the terms, as well as disputes about the validity and enforceability of the arbitration and class-action-waiver provisions. Cooper’s unconscionability arguments were not addressed because he withdrew them at the hearing.

Class Claims

Cooper argued that the arbitration and class-action-waiver provisions were invalid under California law because they prevented him from seeking public injunctive relief in any forum. The court noted that California and Ninth Circuit precedent recognized limits on contractual waivers of public injunctive relief. But the court held that, under the delegation provision, the arbitrator must decide whether the class-action waiver is enforceable.

Because the court could not conclude that Cooper’s class claims failed as a matter of law, it denied Adobe’s motion to dismiss class claims without prejudice. The court explained that if the arbitrator determines the waiver is invalid, Cooper’s class claims can be adjudicated in arbitration.

Disposition

The court granted Adobe’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the outcome of arbitration. It did not dismiss the case because the arbitrator, rather than the court, was to determine whether all of Cooper’s claims fell within the arbitration agreement. The court denied Adobe’s motion to dismiss class claims without prejudice. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order on October 11, 2019.