Henricks v. Flywheel Sports, Inc.

Background

Christina Henricks filed a proposed class action alleging that Flywheel Sports, Inc. violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited advertising and promotional text messages to her cellular phone. She alleged that she had not given Flywheel her phone number or consented to receive the messages.

Flywheel moved to compel arbitration and to stay the court case while arbitration proceeded. Henricks opposed the motion. She said she had always booked Flywheel classes through ClassPass rather than directly through Flywheel, did not recognize Flywheel’s registration page, and did not remember creating a Flywheel account or agreeing to arbitration.

Account Registration and Terms

The record showed that a Flywheel account was created in Henricks’s name on December 2, 2014. Flywheel’s registration page required users to enter personal information and check a box stating that they agreed to Flywheel’s Terms and Conditions of Service and Privacy Policy. The terms were available through a blue hyperlink next to the agreement box.

The terms provided that disputes relating to the website or services would be resolved through final and binding arbitration. They also stated that claims could not be joined with other arbitrations and that class arbitration was not permitted. The court noted that users booking classes through ClassPass still had to create Flywheel accounts.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the Federal Arbitration Act, which generally requires courts to enforce valid arbitration agreements. Because the parties agreed that New York law governed whether they had formed an arbitration agreement, the court applied New York law.

Under that law, a contract requires mutual assent. A person who does not have actual knowledge of contract terms may still be bound by them when the terms are clearly presented, the person is placed on notice that they exist, and the person shows agreement through conduct.

The court concluded that Flywheel’s registration process clearly and noticeably presented the terms. The terms were linked in distinctive blue lettering, and users had to check an agreement box before creating an account. The court relied on decisions holding that users can accept online terms through this type of “clickwrap” process even if they do not read the linked terms.

The court also concluded that Henricks’s lack of memory did not create a factual dispute. Objective records showed that her account had been created on Flywheel’s website and that all users followed the same registration process. The court further rejected her speculation that Flywheel employees might have created the account and accepted the arbitration agreement for her because she offered no evidence that this had occurred.

The court determined that the arbitration provision covered Henricks’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim. It also noted that the parties did not dispute the provision’s scope and that courts had found no congressional intent making Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims nonarbitrable.

Disposition

The court granted Flywheel’s motion to compel arbitration. It stayed the action pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings. The opinion did not decide whether Flywheel violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act or resolve the merits of Henricks’s claim.