Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 89 Filed 03/08/21 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:993
`
`Tina Wolfson (SBN 174806)
`Theodore W. Maya (SBN 223242)
`Bradley K. King (SBN 274399)
`Rachel R. Johnson (SBN 331351)
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
`2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
`Burbank, California 91505
`(310) 474-9111; Fax: (310) 474-8585
`twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
`tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
`bking@ahdootwolfson.com
`rjohnson@ahdootwolfson.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hassan A. Zavareei (SBN 181547)
`Katherine M. Aizpuru (pro hac vice)
`TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
`1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
`
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`
`(202) 973-0900; Fax (202) 973-0950
`hzavareei@tzlegal.com
`
`kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
`
`Daniel S. Robinson (SBN 244245)
`Wesley K. Polischuk (SBN 254121)
`Michael W. Olson (SBN 312857)
`ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
`19 Corporate Plaza Drive
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`(949) 720-1288; Fax (949) 720-1292
`drobinson@robinsonfirm.com
`wpolischuk@robinsonfirm.com
`molson@robinsonfirm.com
`
`Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
`and the Classes
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`In re Ring LLC Privacy Litigation
`
`
`This Document Relates To:
`All Actions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Master File No.: 2:19-cv-10899 MWF
`(RAOx)
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION
`
`DATE: April 12, 2021
`TIME: 10:00 a.m.
`JUDGE: Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald
`CTRM: 5A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF(RAOx)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 89 Filed 03/08/21 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:994
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Pages
` INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
` BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2
`II.
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................. 3
`IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 4
`A.
`The Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs are Not Bound by the Arbitration
`Agreements ........................................................................................... 4
`1.
`The Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs Are Not “Authorized Users.” ..... 5
`2.
`The Minor Children Plaintiffs Exercised Their Right of
`Disaffirmance and Are Not Subject to Ring’s Arbitration
`Clause. ........................................................................................ 6
`The Purchaser Plaintiffs Did Not Agree to Arbitrate on
`3.
`Behalf of Their Minor Children or Ms. McKiernan. ................. 7
`
`Equitable Estoppel Is Inapplicable. ............................................ 9
`4.
`The Purchaser Plaintiffs Did Not Assent to Ring’s Arbitration
`Agreement .......................................................................................... 11
`1.
`The Exterior Packaging Did Not Provide Sufficient Notice
`
`of the Terms. ............................................................................ 12
`2.
`Ring’s Browsewrap Agreement on Its Application and
`
`Website Failed to Provide Sufficient Notice to the
`
`Purchaser Plaintiffs. ................................................................. 13
`The Parties Did not Agree by Clear and Conspicuous Evidence to
`Delegation, and Ring’s Arb. Clause is Unconscionable .................... 17
`1.
`The Purported Delegation Provision Is Missing from Many
`Versions of the Terms. ............................................................. 17
`No Plaintiff Agreed to Arbitrate, Much Less to Delegate
`2.
`That Question to An Arbitrator. ............................................... 18
`
`Ring’s Arb. Clause Is Unconscionable .................................... 19
`3.
`The Arbitration Clause is unenforceable under McGill v. Citibank,
`N.A. ..................................................................................................... 21
`V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 23
`- i -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF(RAOx)
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 89 Filed 03/08/21 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:995
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Pages
`
`Cases
`
`A.D. v. Credit One Bank, N.A.,
`
`885 F.3d 1054 (7th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................... 5, 6
`
`Am. Bureau of Shipping v. Tencara Shipyard S.P.A.,
`
`170 F.3d 349 (2d Cir. 1999) ........................................................................... 11
`
`Applebaum v. Lyft, Inc.,
`
`263 F. Supp. 3d 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ............................................................ 16
`
`Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.,
`
`24 Cal. 4th 83 (2000) ..................................................................................... 19
`
`Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. Mgmt., Inc.,
`
`785 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 3
`
`Berg v. Traylor,
`
`148 Cal. App. 4th 809 (2007) ...................................................................... 6, 8
`
`Berkson v. Gogo LLC,
`
`97 F. Supp. 3d 359 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) ............................................................. 16
`
`Blair v. Rent-a-Ctr., Inc.,
`
`928 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................. 21, 22, 23
`
`Brown v. Comcast Corp.,
`
`No. EDCV1600264ABSPX, 2016 WL 9109112
`
`(C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016) .......................................................................... 8, 10
`
`Bryant v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`
`No. 20-CV-04669-SK, 2021 WL 711495 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2021) ............ 19
`
`Chan v. Charter Communications,
`
`No. EDCV150886JGBKKX, 2015 WL 12655701
`
`(C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015) .................................................................................. 9
`
`Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Grp.,
`
`135 Cal. App. 4th 663 (2006) ........................................................................ 22
`
`Colgate v. JUUL Labs, Inc.,
`
`402 F. Supp. 3d 728 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ............................................... 14, 15, 16
`
`Comer v. Micor, Inc.,
`
`436 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2006) ......................................................... 4, 9, 10, 11
`
`Cottrell v. AT&T Inc.,
`
`No. 19-cv-07672-JCS, 2020 WL 2747774 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2020) .......... 22
`- ii -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF(RAOx)
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 89 Filed 03/08/21 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:996
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Coughenour v. Del Taco, LLC,
`
`57 Cal. App. 5th 740 (2020) ............................................................................ 6
`
`County of Contra Costa v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan,
`
`47 Cal. App. 4th 237 (1996) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Cullinane v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`
`893 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 16
`
`Daniel v. Ford Motor Co.,
`
`806 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 5
`
`Deck v. Spartz, Inc.,
`
`No. 2:11–CV–01123–JAM–DAD, 2011 WL 7775067
`
`(E.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2011) ................................................................................ 6
`
`Doe v. Epic Games, Inc.,
`
`No. 19-CV-03639-YGR, 2020 WL 376573 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2020) ........... 6
`
`Dohrmann v. Intuit, Inc.,
`
`823 F. App’x 482 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................. 16
`
`Douglas v. U.S. Dist. Court for C.D. Cal.,
`
`495 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................. 18, 20
`
`Doyle v. Giulucci,
`
`62 Cal. 2d 606 (1965) ...................................................................................... 8
`
`First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan,
`
`514 U.S. 938 (1995) ......................................................................................... 4
`
`Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,
`
`561 U.S. 287 (2010) ......................................................................................... 3
`
`Hawkins v. Superior Court,
`
`89 Cal. App. 3d 413 (1979) ............................................................................. 8
`
`Hill v. Quicken Loans Inc.,
`
`No. ED CV 19-0163 FMO (SPx), 2020 WL 5358394
`
`(C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020) .................................................................................. 3
`
`Hofer v. Emley, No. 19-CV-02205-JSC,
`
`2019 WL 4575389 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2019) ........................................ 10, 11
`
`Hohe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist.,
`
`224 Cal. App. 3d 1559 (1990) ......................................................................... 8
`
`Ingle v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.,
`
`328 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................. 18, 20
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF(RAOx)
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 89 Filed 03/08/21 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:997
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Kauders v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`
`486 Mass. 557 (2021) .................................................................................... 18
`
`Kilgore v. KeyBank Nat’l Ass’n,
`
`718 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................... 3, 18
`
`Lifescan v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc.,
`363 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2004) ....................................................................... 12
`
`
`Lopez v. Kmart Corp,
`
`No. 15-CV-01089-JSC, 2015 WL 2062606 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2015) ............ 6
`
`McArdle v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`
`772 Fed. App’x 575 (9th Cir. 2019) .............................................................. 21
`
`McArdle v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`
`No. 09-cv-01117, 2017 WL 4354998 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2017) .................... 22
`
`McGill v. Citibank, N.A.,
`
`2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) ................................................................................. 2, 21
`
`McKee v. Audible, Inc.,
`
`No. CV 17-1941-GW(EX), 2017 WL 4685039 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2017) ... 16
`
`Mendez v. LoanMe, Inc.,
`
`No. 20-CV-00002-BAS-AHG, 2020 WL 6044098
`
`(S.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020) ................................................................................. 4
`
`Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`
`868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017) ............................................................................. 15
`
`Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`
`848 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 18
`
`Momot v. Mastro,
`
`652 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2011) ......................................................................... 18
`
`Montoya v. Comcast Corp,
`
`No. 2:15–cv–02573-TLN-DB, 2016 WL 5340651
`
`(E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016) .............................................................................. 11
`
`Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc.,
`
`724 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2013) ......................................................................... 9
`
`Murray v. Grocery Delivery E-Services United States,
`
`460 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D. Mass. 2020) .............................................................. 18
`
`Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc.,
`
`763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 14, 16
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF(RAOx)
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 89 Filed 03/08/21 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:998
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 16
`
`Niemann v. Deverich,
`
`98 Cal. App. 2d 787 (1950) ............................................................................. 6
`
`Norcia v. Samsung Telecomm’ns Am., LLC,
`
`845 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................. 4, 12, 13
`
`OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho,
`
`8 Cal. 5th 111 (2019) ..................................................................................... 19
`
`Payne v. Amazon, C.A.
`
`No. 2:17-cv-2313-PMD, 2018 WL 4489275 (D.S.C. July 25, 2018) ............ 11
`
`Ramirez v. Electronic Arts Inc.,
`
`No. 20-cv-05672, 2021 WL 843184 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2021) ..................... 16
`
`Roberts v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`
`No. 15-cv-03418-EMC, 2018 WL 1317346 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018) ....... 22
`
`Rushing v. Viacom Inc.,
`
`No. 17-CV-04492-JD, 2018 WL 4998139 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018) ........... 16
`
`Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC,
`
`61 Cal. 4th 899 (2015) ................................................................................... 19
`
`Snarr v. HRB Tax Group, Inc.,
`
`No.19-17441, 2020 WL 7249334 (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2020) ............................. 22
`
`Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno,
`
`57 Cal. 4th 1109 (2013) ................................................................................. 20
`
`Sparks v. Sparks,
`
`101 Cal. App. 2d 129 (1950) ........................................................................... 6
`
`Specht v. Netscape Comm. Corp.,
`
`306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002) ............................................................................. 12
`
`Totten v. Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC,
`
`152 F. Supp. 3d 1243 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ........................................................... 4
`
`Wilson v. Huuuge, Inc.,
`
`944 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................. 3, 14, 20
`
`Windsor Mills, Inc. v. Collins & Aikman Corp.,
`
`25 Cal. App. 3d 987 (1972) ........................................................................... 12
`
`Wofford v. Apple,
`
`No. 11–CV–0034 AJB (NLS), 2012 WL 1431216
`
`(S.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2012) ............................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`- v -
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF(RAOx)
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 89 Filed 03/08/21 Page 7 of 31 Page ID #:999
`
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`Cal. Civ. Code
`
`§ 1670.5 .......................................................................................................... 19
`
`Cal. Fam. Code
`
`§ 6710 ............................................................................................................... 6
`
`Other Authorities
`
` Williston on Contracts § 9.5 (4th ed.) .................................................................... 6
` Williston on Contracts § 18.10 (4th ed. 2010) ..................................................... 19
`
` 5
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF(RAOx)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 89 Filed 03/08/21 Page 8 of 31 Page ID #:1000
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Defendant Ring LLC (“Ring”) sold home security devices riddled with deficient
`security protocols and privacy protections. Hackers took advantage of these obvious
`deficiencies to gain unauthorized access to Plaintiffs’ Ring devices. Through the devices
`that Plaintiffs relied on for safety and security, the hackers virtually invaded their homes
`and shouted profanities, obscenities, and death threats at them. Others suffered the loss of
`their personal identifying information (“PII”), which Ring provided to third parties
`without their consent or authorization. Now, Ring seeks to avoid class liability or public
`accountability by forcing its customers into private arbitration. But Ring’s motion fails
`for several reasons.
`First, many Plaintiffs never purchased anything from Ring and therefore cannot be
`said to be bound to Ring’s Terms and Conditions (“Terms”) by their own volition. These
`“Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs”1 never were presented with any Terms, hyperlinks, or
`checkboxes, and never were given the opportunity to consider the Terms or opt out of
`arbitration. Even had they signed such an arbitration clause, however, many of these Non-
`Purchaser Plaintiffs are minors entitled to disaffirm it now.
`Second, Ring’s presentation of an inconspicuous hyperlink to its Terms during the
`account creation process is not enough to put the Purchaser Plaintiffs on notice of its ever-
`changing arbitration clause (“Arb. Clause”). It would be manifestly unjust to compel the
`Purchaser Plaintiffs to arbitration on the basis of a nondescript link, intentionally set forth
`in tiny lettering with no indication of its consequences. No agreement to arbitrate was
`formed, even with the Purchaser Plaintiffs.
`Third, earlier version of its Terms (the only Terms ever presented to many of the
`Purchaser Plaintiffs here) give this Court authority to decide enforceability, assuming that
`an agreement to arbitrate was formed, but the Arb. Clause is not enforceable in light of
`its high degree of procedural and substantive unconscionability. Indeed, those Plaintiffs
`
`
`1 Ring refers to “Signatory” and “Non-Signatory” Plaintiffs. This tautological
`terminology assumes a contested issue. Plaintiffs signed anything. Thus, Plaintiffs will
`use the less loaded terms “Purchaser” and “Non-Purchaser” Plaintiffs.
`- 1 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF(RAOx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 89 Filed 03/08/21 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #:1001
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`who set up Ring accounts also suffered the loss of their personal identifying information
`(“PII”), which Ring provided to third parties without their consent or authorization, before
`they even clicked “Create Account.”
`Finally, even if Ring had put any Plaintiff on notice of its Terms or its Arb. Clause,
`the Arb. Clause is invalid and unenforceable under McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th
`945 (2017), because it purports to prohibit Plaintiffs from seeking public injunctive relief
`in any forum. The Arb. Clause is therefore unenforceable. For all these reasons, the
`Motion should be denied.
`II. BACKGROUND
`Due to Ring’s inadequate security protocols, hackers gained access to Plaintiffs’
`Ring home-security devices’ cameras and speakers, and harassed and traumatized
`Plaintiffs in their homes. Plaintiffs—who include, among others, young children and an
`elderly woman who never purchased any device or accessed Ring’s application or
`website—were spied upon and subjected to verbal abuse, including death threats, racial
`slurs, and sexual harassment through Ring’s devices. The Purchaser Plaintiffs were
`further injured when Ring affirmatively shared their PII with third parties without the
`Purchaser Plaintiffs’ informed consent. FAC ¶ 4, ECF 69. Ring begins collecting PII from
`users before they ever complete the account creation process or are presented with any
`hyperlink to Ring’s Terms. See Declaration of Guillermo Monge del Olmo (“Monge del
`Olmo Decl.”).
`Ring did not disclose its Terms to the Purchaser Plaintiffs until long after they had
`already spent money on Ring devices and/or installed them, and it is undisputed that Ring
`never disclosed its Terms to the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs. There was no mention of the
`Terms (much less the Arb. Clause) at the point of purchase. Nor did the device
`packaging—which merely states in fine print on the bottom of the box “Use of the product
`is subject to your registration with Ring and your agreement to the [Terms] found at
`www.ring.com/terms.” (ECF 83-3)—put the Purchaser Plaintiffs on notice of any Arb.
`Clause. Importantly, the Terms themselves are not located on or within the Ring device
`packaging and the packaging did not anywhere mention arbitration. (Id.)
`- 2 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF(RAOx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 89 Filed 03/08/21 Page 10 of 31 Page ID #:1002
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`After spending significant sums of money to buy Ring devices and in order to use
`them, the Purchaser Plaintiffs were required to create Ring accounts either through Ring’s
`mobile application or its website. Buried several clicks into the registration process, Ring
`displayed a small-print hyperlink to its Terms. See Declaration of John Modestine ¶¶ 21-
`39, ECF 83-2 (“Modestine Decl.”). Ring did not require its customers to view its Terms
`in order to create or sign into a Ring account. (ECF 83-2 at ¶¶ 21-43.) The Purchaser
`Plaintiffs have no memory of seeing the Terms, the hyperlink to them, or a statement that
`by creating an account they agreed to the Terms. See Declarations of Tania Amador,
`Jason Ball, Josefine Brown, Michael Brown, James Butler, Maureen Butler, Jason
`Caldwell, Richard Cambiano, Todd Craig, Brandon Hagan, Ashlee LeMay, Angela
`Mako, Marco Mariutto, Lue Mayora, Ashley Norris, Jacob Norris, Jeannette Pantoja,
`Jennifer Politi, John Politi, Johnny Powell, Abhi Sheth, Megan Skeuse, Sherry Slade,
`William Slade, Corrina Tillman, and Jerathen Tillman (collectively, “Purchaser Plaintiff
`Declarations”), filed concurrently herewith.
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`“Arbitration is strictly a matter of consent.” Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of
`Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 299 (2010). Before compelling arbitration, the Court must find
`(1) that “a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) [that] the agreement
`encompasses the dispute at issue.” Kilgore v. KeyBank Nat’l Ass’n, 718 F.3d 1052, 1058
`(9th Cir. 2013). The moving party “has the burden under the FAA to show [these two
`elements].” Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 785 F.3d 1320, 1323 (9th Cir. 2015).
`The issue of contractual assent is within the court’s purview. See Wilson v. Huuuge,
`Inc., 944 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2019) (affirming order denying arbitration of claims
`involving app because defendant presented no evidence plaintiff had actual notice and the
`arbitration clause was hidden in a nondescript link, making constructive notice
`impossible). “Courts may only compel arbitration where there are no genuine disputes of
`material fact surrounding the arbitration agreement’s existence.” Hill v. Quicken Loans
`Inc., No. ED CV 19-0163 FMO (SPx), 2020 WL 5358394, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020).
`On a motion to compel arbitration, “courts treat the facts as they would when ruling on a
`- 3 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF(RAOx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 89 Filed 03/08/21 Page 11 of 31 Page ID #:1003
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`motion for summary judgment, construing all facts and reasonable inferences that can be
`drawn from those facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Id. at *4
`(quoting Totten v. Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC, 152 F. Supp. 3d 1243, 1249 (C.D. Cal.
`2016)).
`Courts generally “apply ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of
`contracts” to decide “whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a certain matter (including
`arbitrability).” Mendez v. LoanMe, Inc., No. 20-CV-00002-BAS-AHG, 2020 WL
`6044098, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020) (citing First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan,
`514 U.S. 938, 944 (1995)). “[T]he ‘liberal federal policy regarding the scope of arbitrable
`issues is inapposite’ when the question is ‘whether a particular party is bound by the
`arbitration agreement.’” Norcia v. Samsung Telecomm’ns Am., LLC, 845 F.3d 1279, 1291
`(9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Comer v. Micor, Inc., 436 F.3d 1098, 1104 n.11 (9th Cir. 2006)).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A. The Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs are Not Bound by the Arbitration
`Agreements.
`Ring contends that the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs (i.e., the “Non-Signatory
`Plaintiffs” whom it defines as the twelve minor children Plaintiffs and Ms. McKiernan,
`an elderly woman terrorized in her nursing home) are bound by arbitration agreements
`signed by their parents or guardians. As an initial matter, none of the Plaintiffs formed
`enforceable agreements to arbitrate. Thus, any argument relying on the premise that the
`Purchaser Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate on behalf of the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs fails.
`Ring’s separate efforts to bind the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs to contracts that they were
`complete strangers to fail for additional reasons. First, none of the Non-Purchaser
`Plaintiffs had authorized account access to any Ring account; thus, Ring’s argument that
`the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs are bound by the Terms as “Authorized Users” fails. Second,
`the minor children Plaintiffs exercised their rights, as minors, to disaffirm any such
`agreement and cannot be forced into arbitration. Third, Ring’s arguments rely on
`inapposite cases addressing policy considerations specific to medical or public services
`that do not apply to contracts of adhesion for consumer goods. Finally, the doctrine of
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF(RAOx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 89 Filed 03/08/21 Page 12 of 31 Page ID #:1004
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`equitable estoppel has no place here because the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs did not
`“knowingly exploit” the contract containing the Arb. Clause and the claims do not arise
`out of the Terms.
`1.
`The Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs Are Not “Authorized Users.”
`According to Ring, the arbitration clause applies to “Authorized Users,” which are
`circularly defined as “any person or entity authorized to access or use the Owner’s
`Products and Services.” Mot. at 16. Ring contends that because the Non-Purchaser
`Plaintiffs supposedly used Ring’s devices, they are “Authorized Users” and thus bound
`by the arbitration clause. Not so.
`The vague term “Authorized User” cannot be construed to include the Non-
`Purchaser Plaintiffs. The Terms provide that Ring device owners “should authorize only
`those individuals that you trust to access your account, Products, and Services” (e.g., ECF
`83-9 at 3 (emphasis added)), and warn that recordings can be deleted by “your Authorized
`Users” (id. at 7). Thus, a reasonable interpretation of “Authorized Users” is that it means
`those with authority to access Ring accounts and delete recordings.2 Ring has not shown
`that includes the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs.
`In a similar case, the Seventh Circuit found the daughter of a credit-card-holder
`could not be compelled to arbitrate as an authorized user just because she used her
`mother’s credit card once. See A.D. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 885 F.3d 1054, 1061-65
`(7th Cir. 2018). Though the cardholder agreement provided, “if you allow someone to use
`your Account, that person will be an Authorized User,” the Seventh Circuit observed that
`the agreement also set forth a specific procedure to authorize another user. Id. Similarly,
`Ring’s Terms specify that an Authorized User is someone with meaningful access to the
`Ring account; an Authorized User cannot encompass everyone within sight and earshot
`of a Ring device.3 This argument fails.
`
`
`2 Ring’s Terms constitute a contract of adhesion; therefore “any ambiguities caused by
`the draftsman of the contract must be resolved against that party.” Daniel v. Ford Motor
`Co., 806 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2015).
`3 Extending Ring’s “Authorized User” definition to compel non-signatories to arbitration
`in this case would lead to absurd results. Would every person that appeared before Ring’s
`- 5 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF(RAOx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 89 Filed 03/08/21 Page 13 of 31 Page ID #:1005
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`2.
`
`The Minor Children Plaintiffs Exercised Their Right of
`Disaffirmance and Are Not Subject to Ring’s Arbitration Clause.
`For more than 200 years, courts have declined to force minors into arbitration
`against their will. See 5 Williston on Contracts § 9.5 (4th ed.). To protect children from
`those attempting to bind them to unreasonable agreements, California permits minors to
`disaffirm a contract before majority or within a reasonable time afterward. See Cal. Fam.
`Code § 6710. A minor may “disaffirm all obligations under a contract, even for services
`previously rendered.” Deck v. Spartz, Inc., No. 2:11–CV–01123–JAM–DAD, 2011 WL
`7775067, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2011) (emphasis added).
`The right of disaffirmance protects “a minor against himself and his indiscretions
`and immaturity as well as against the machinations of other people and to discourage
`adults from contracting with an infant.” Niemann v. Deverich, 98 Cal. App. 2d 787, 793
`(1950); see also Sparks v. Sparks, 101 Cal. App. 2d 129, 137 (1950). When a minor
`disaffirms a contract, he or she is not subject to its terms—including mandatory
`arbitration. Minors can disaffirm contracts signed for them by a parent,4 or contracts their
`parents made that could have encompassed the minor. See A.D., 885 F.3d at 1062-63.
`By filing this lawsuit (instead of demanding arbitration), the minor Plaintiffs
`disaffirmed Ring’s Terms and cannot be compelled to arbitrate this dispute.5 Their
`disaffirmance provides a separate basis to deny the motion.
`
`
`devices, from houseguest to delivery person, be bound by whatever agreement into which
`their host may have entered with Ring? Surely not. Of course, there is no requirement that
`to be surveilled by Ring’s device one must agree to Ring’s Terms.
`4 Berg v. Traylor, 148 Cal. App. 4th 809 (2007) (finding minor had a statutory right to
`disaffirm a contract entered into on his behalf by the minor’s mother).
`5 See Coughenour v. Del Taco, LLC, 57 Cal. App. 5th 740, 748 (2020) (“The filing of a
`lawsuit is sufficient disaffirmance.”); Lopez v. Kmart Corp, No. 15-CV-01089-JSC, 2015
`WL 2062606, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2015) (where Plaintiff entered into a valid
`agreement, “he has exercised his statutory right of disaffirmance, thereby rescinding the
`contract and rendering it a nullity . . . as a result, there is no valid agreement to
`arbitration.”); Doe v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 19-CV-03639-YGR, 2020 WL 376573 (N.D.
`Cal. Jan. 23, 2020) (“[T]he minor’s power to disaffirm is broad and can be invoked
`‘through any act or declaration’ that conveys his intent to repudiate a contract.”) (citation
`omitted).
`
`
`- 6 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF(RAOx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 89 Filed 03/08/21 Page 14 of 31 Page ID #:1006
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`3.
`
`The Purchaser Plaintiffs Did Not Agree to Arbitrate on Behalf of
`Their Minor Children or Ms. McKiernan.
`Ring argues that the Arb. Clause binds the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs because the
`Purchaser Plaintiffs entered into the contract on the Non-Purchasers’ behalf. This is
`wrong too. The language of the Terms explicitly precludes its applicability to minors who
`never saw the agreement:
`You represent and warrant that you are of legal age in your jurisdiction to form a
`binding contract (or if not, that you are over the age of 13 and you’ve received your
`parent’s or guardian’s permission to use the Services and gotten your parent or guardian
`to agree to these Terms on your behalf).
`(ECF 83-4 at 1.) Thus, the Terms could only apply to parties forming the contract
`who are (a) of legal age