Kahl v. Match Group, LLC

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that Plentyoffish Media violated California law by restricting the age range for potential matches on the Plenty of Fish dating app. The plaintiffs had agreed to versions of Plentyoffish Media’s terms of use when creating their accounts. Those terms included an arbitration agreement.

The plaintiffs argued that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable, meaning unfairly one-sided or otherwise unenforceable. Two plaintiffs also argued that certain arbitration terms were available only through a hyperlink, so the parties had not agreed to all material terms.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that whether an arbitration agreement is unconscionable is ordinarily a gateway issue decided by a court. But parties may agree to assign that issue to an arbitrator through a delegation provision.

Here, the terms of use incorporated either the JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures or the NAM Comprehensive Dispute Resolution Rules and Procedures. Those rules assign the arbitrator authority to decide disputes about the arbitration agreement’s formation, existence, validity, interpretation, and scope.

The plaintiffs did not specifically challenge those delegation provisions. Under the court’s reading of the governing precedent, their challenges to the arbitration agreement as a whole—including the unconscionability and missing-terms arguments—therefore had to be decided by the arbitrator rather than the court.

Disposition

The court granted Plentyoffish Media’s motion to compel arbitration. It compelled the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims under the terms of use and dismissed the case without prejudice. The court stated that the plaintiffs could file a new action to confirm or vacate an arbitration award if necessary.

Judge Alex G. Tse signed the order on June 13, 2023.