Young v. ByteDance Inc.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:22-cv-01883
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Young v. ByteDance Inc., Judge Chhabria denied without prejudice TikTok and ByteDance’s request to force Velez’s claims into arbitration and allowed discovery to proceed.
Velez, TikTok, ByteDance, and discovery involving both plaintiffs.
What happened
In Young v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok and ByteDance asked the court to require arbitration of Velez’s claims. They relied on an arbitration agreement between Velez and her direct employer, Telus, even though they were not parties to that agreement.
TikTok and ByteDance argued that Velez should not be allowed to avoid arbitration under a legal principle called equitable estoppel. But their motion cited both Nevada and California law without identifying which state’s law governed whether they could enforce the agreement.
Judge Vince Chhabria denied the motion without prejudice, allowing TikTok and ByteDance to file a new motion that clearly identifies the applicable state law. The court also said discovery involving both plaintiffs could proceed immediately.
The detailed version
- Young v. ByteDance Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-01883
- Vince Chhabria
- May 15, 2023
Background
TikTok and ByteDance moved to compel arbitration of Velez’s claims. Their argument relied on an arbitration agreement between Velez and her direct employer, Telus. TikTok and ByteDance acknowledged that they were not signatories to that agreement, but argued that Velez should be equitably estopped—prevented under applicable contract law from avoiding arbitration.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a person or company that did not sign an arbitration agreement may invoke arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act if the relevant state contract law allows enforcement. TikTok and ByteDance cited both Nevada and California law but did not identify which state’s law applied to the issue.
Disposition
The court denied the motion to compel arbitration without prejudice. TikTok and ByteDance may file a renewed motion that clearly identifies the applicable state law. The court also ordered that discovery as to both plaintiffs could proceed immediately. The order noted that, in a separate opinion issued at the same time, the court denied in part and granted in part TikTok and ByteDance’s motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.