Quamina v. JustAnswer LLC

Background

Jessica Quamina, Tasha Davis, Kristie Godun, Moya McDowell, Renee Pettit, and Latoya Foust brought a putative class action against JustAnswer LLC. They allege that they agreed to pay between $1.00 and $5.00 to ask questions through JustAnswer's website or mobile app, but were then enrolled without consent in recurring monthly subscriptions that charged their credit cards between $46.00 and $60.00 per month. The complaint asserts a claim under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and claims under consumer-protection laws of California, New York, North Carolina, and Florida.

Arbitration Request

JustAnswer asked the court to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act and an arbitration clause in its Terms of Service. It also sought to enforce a class-action waiver requiring the plaintiffs to proceed individually. JustAnswer argued that the plaintiffs had actual knowledge, or at least inquiry notice, of the Terms of Service. The plaintiffs primarily argued that no agreement was formed because the Terms of Service were presented through a browsewrap arrangement, meaning the terms were allegedly available through a website link rather than affirmatively accepted. They also raised objections concerning unconscionability and fraud.

Court's Analysis

The court concluded that the arbitration question was not adequately presented for decision. First, the parties had not sufficiently briefed choice of law. JustAnswer's three user agreements identified Idaho law as governing the agreements and disputes, but JustAnswer applied California law to the formation issue without explaining which jurisdiction California's choice-of-law rules selected. The plaintiffs stated that California law applied but did not provide a fuller analysis. The court also noted that the parties had not squarely addressed the significance of the case's federal-question jurisdiction.

Second, the record contained factual disagreements about how users signed up and received notice of the Terms of Service. Under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, when the making of an arbitration agreement is disputed, the court must proceed summarily to a trial on that issue. The court stated that an online-agreement dispute does not always require a trial, but it was not clear that this dispute could be decided without one.

Third, the complaint's description of an earlier California state-court case suggested possible overlap with the facts and claims here. The record did not make clear whether, or to what extent, that earlier settlement affected this case.

Disposition

The court declined to resolve arbitration on the record as it then stood. It directed the parties to meet and confer and file a joint statement by November 6, 2023, no longer than 22 pages, addressing: (1) which law applies to the arbitration-formation issue and why; (2) whether a trial should be held under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act and, if not, why not; and (3) whether and how the earlier California state-court settlement affects the claims in this case. The opinion did not decide whether the plaintiffs agreed to arbitration or whether the class-action waiver was enforceable.