Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 1 of 46
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`Saul Maldonado, et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1:22-cv-02289-ALC
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`v.
`
`
`National Football League, et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 2 of 46
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`THE RELEVANT PLAINTIFF TRANSACTIONS ........................................................... 2
`LEGAL STANDARD & MOVING PARTY’S BURDEN ................................................. 3
`PLAINTIFFS DID NOT AGREE TO ARBITRATE THEIR CLAIMS BECAUSE
`THEY WERE NOT ON NOTICE OF THE TERMS OF USE ........................................... 4
`Plaintiffs were not on inquiry notice of the Terms of Use when they made
`A.
`purchases on a desktop computer. ........................................................................... 6
`1.
`The Terms of Use links are “below the fold”. ............................................. 6
`2.
`The Terms of Use links are not presented in a clear and
`conspicuous manner in light of the whole page. ......................................... 8
`Plaintiffs were not on inquiry notice of the Terms of Use when making a
`purchase on a mobile device. ................................................................................. 10
`When presented on a mobile device, the Terms of Use links are
`1.
`both below the fold and obscured by the virtual keyboard. ...................... 10
`The Terms of Use links are even less conspicuous on a mobile
`device than on a desktop. ........................................................................... 11
`Plaintiffs were not on inquiry notice of the Terms of Use when they
`created an account on either website. .................................................................... 12
`EVEN IF CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS AGREED TO ARBITRATE CERTAIN
`CLAIMS, NOT ALL CLAIMS ARE SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION ............................ 16
`A.
`The scope of the Terms of Use is for the Court to determine. .............................. 16
`B.
`Plaintiffs are not bound to arbitrate claims for purchases made on other
`websites. ................................................................................................................ 19
`Plaintiffs’ claims for purchases on other websites are not
`1.
`“connected with” the “Properties” or “Website”. ...................................... 20
`Each Terms of Use expressly states that it governs only the user’s
`use of that particular website. .................................................................... 22
`The plain language of each Terms of Use acknowledges the
`existence of other websites but does not include them in the
`arbitration provision. ................................................................................. 23
`THE UNNAMED DEFENDANTS MAY NOT ENFORCE THE TERMS OF
`USE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT AFFILIATES OF EITHER FANATICS OR
`NFL PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................... 24
`Neither the Fanatics.com Terms of Use nor the NFLShop.com Terms of
`A.
`Use show an intent to arbitrate with the unnamed Defendants. ............................ 25
`- i -
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 3 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`B.
`C.
`
`The NFL Defendants are not “affiliates” of Fanatics. ........................................... 26
`The unnamed Defendants may not enforce the agreements under a theory
`of equitable estoppel. ............................................................................................. 28
`Co-conspirators may not invoke estoppel to compel arbitration
`1.
`simply because they are co-conspirators. .................................................. 30
`The unnamed Defendants do not have a corporate relationship to a
`signatory sufficient to invoke equitable estoppel. ..................................... 31
`VII. THERE IS NO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF THE ACTUAL
`FANATICS.COM TERMS OF USE THAT DEFENDANTS ALLEGE
`PLAINTIFFS AGREED TO ............................................................................................. 33
`The “Wayback Machine” evidence of Fanatics’ 2017 Terms of Use is
`A.
`unauthenticated and inadmissible. ......................................................................... 34
`Ms. Flinchbaugh’s testimony violates the Best Evidence Rule. ........................... 34
`B.
`VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 35
`
`2.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 4 of 46
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Am. Needle, Inc. v. Nat’l Football League,
`560 U.S. 183 (2010) .................................................................................................... 28, 31
`
`Amadeus Glob. Travel Distribution, S.A. v. Orbitz, LLC,
`302 F. Supp. 2d 329 (D. Del. 2004) .................................................................................. 27
`
`Applebaum v. Lyft, Inc.,
`263 F. Supp. 3d 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ................................................................................. 7
`
`Bensadoun v. Jobe–Riat,
`316 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`Berkson v. GoGo LLC,
`97 F. Supp. 3d 359 (E.D.N.Y.) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LLC,
`30 F.4th 849 (9th Cir. 2022) ....................................................................................... passim
`
`Bernardino v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.,
`No. 17CV04570LAKKHP, 2017 WL 7309893 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20,
`2017), report and recommendation adopted as modified, No. 17-CV-4570
`(LAK), 2018 WL 671258 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2018) ........................................................... 7
`
`Blash v. BCS Placements, LLC,
`No. 19-cv-6321, 2020 WL 2832777 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2020) .................................. 17, 18
`
`Camilo v. Lyft, Inc.,
`384 F. Supp. 3d 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ................................................................................. 7
`
`Citibank, N.A. v. Franco,
`No. 11 CIV. 2925 RMB, 2011 WL 6961404 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2011) .......................... 27
`
`Compare Specht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp.,
`306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Cooper v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc.,
`990 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................... passim
`
`Cullinane v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`893 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................... 15
`
`DDK Hotels, LLC v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc.,
`6 F.4th 308 (2d Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................... 16, 19
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 5 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Alemayehu,
`934 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2019) .............................................................................................. 16
`
`Doe v. Trump Corp.,
`6 F.4th 400 (2d Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................... 29, 30
`
`Dreyfuss v. Etelecare Glob. Sols.-U.S. Inc.,
`349 F. App’x 551 (2d Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................... 35
`
`Feld v. Postmates, Inc.,
`442 F. Supp. 3d 825 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ................................................................................. 4
`
`Foster v. Lee,
`93 F. Supp. 3d 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ................................................................................. 34
`
`Fraternity Fund Ltd. v. Beacon Hill Asset Mgmt. LLC,
`371 F. Supp. 2d 571 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ............................................................................... 32
`
`Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters,
`561 U.S. 287 (2010) ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`In re Asian Yard Partners,
`No. 95-333-PJW, 1995 WL 1781675 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 18, 1995) ............................. 27
`
`In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litig.,
`962 F. Supp. 2d 840 (D. Md. 2013) ................................................................................... 30
`
`In re Wholesale Grocery Prod. Antitrust Litig.,
`707 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................. 26
`
`Jones v. Halliburton Co.,
`583 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................. 22
`
`Kai Peng v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`237 F. Supp. 3d 36 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) ................................................................................... 7
`
`Laumann v. National Hockey League,
`Nos. 12 Civ. 1817 & 3704(SAS), 2013 WL 837640 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2013) ................ 30
`
`McKee v. Audible, Inc.,
`No. CV 17-1941-GW(EX), 2017 WL 4685039 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2017) ....................... 11
`
`Medicis Pharm. Corp. v. Anacor Pharms., Inc.,
`No. CV 8095-VCP, 2013 WL 4509652 (Del. Ch. Aug. 12, 2013) ................................... 18
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 6 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Metter v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-06652-RS, 2017 WL 1374579 (N.D. Cal. April 17, 2017) .......................... 7, 11
`
`Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017) .............................................................................................. 5, 7
`
`NASDAQ OMX Grp., Inc. v. UBS Sec., LLC,
`770 F.3d 1010 (2d Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................ 16
`
`Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc.,
`763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................... 16
`
`Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................... passim
`
`Ostreicher v. TransUnion, LLC,
`No. 19-CV-8174, 2020 WL 3414633 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020) ...................................... 18
`
`Parfi Holding AB v. Mirror Image Internet, Inc.,
`817 A.2d 149 (Del. 2002) ............................................................................................ 20, 21
`
`Peiran Zheng v. Live Auctioneers LLC,
`2021 WL 2043562 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2021) ................................................................. 5, 8
`
`Ramasamy v. Essar Glob. Ltd.,
`825 F. Supp. 2d 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ............................................................................... 24
`
`Really Good Stuff, LLC v. BAP Invs., L.C.,
`No. 19-CIV-2218 (LLS)(GWG), 2021 WL 2469707 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2021) .............. 34
`
`Roby v. Corp. of Lloyd’s,
`996 F.2d 1353 (2d Cir. 1993) ............................................................................................ 21
`
`Ross v. Amer. Exp. Co.,
`574 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 29, 30, 31, 32
`
`Rui Chen v. Premier Financial Alliance, Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-3771 (YGR), 2019 WL 280944 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019) ............................ 35
`
`Ryan v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
`924 F. Supp. 2d 559 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ................................................................................. 4
`
`Sarhank Group v. Oracle Corp.,
`404 F.3d 657 (2d Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 7 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp.,
`697 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`Sellers v. JustAnswer LLC,
`73 Cal.App.5th 444 (2021) ................................................................................................ 16
`
`Sgouros v. TransUnion Corp.,
`817 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................. 7
`
`Shah v. Wilco Sys., Inc.,
`916 N.Y.S.2d 82 (2011) .................................................................................................... 27
`
`Sokol Holdings, Inc. v. BMB Munai, Inc.,
`542 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2008) .................................................................................. 28, 30, 32
`
`Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advert. Fund Tr., Ltd.,
`999 F.3d 828 (2d Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................ 5
`
`Starke v. SquareTrade, Inc.,
`913 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`Temple v. Best Rate Holdings LLC,
`360 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2018) ........................................................................ 8, 18
`
`The Republic of Iraq v. BNP Paribas USA,
`472 F. App’x 11 (2d Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................... 24
`
`Unicorn Crowdfunding, Inc. v. New St. Enter., Inc.,
`507 F. Supp. 3d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). .............................................................................. 35
`
`Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Sappington,
`884 F.3d 392 (2d Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................. 18
`
`STATUTES
`
`11 U.S.C. § 101(2) ......................................................................................................................... 27
`
`12 U.S.C. § 1841(k) ....................................................................................................................... 27
`
`17 C.F.R. § 230.405 ....................................................................................................................... 27
`
`17 C.F.R. § 240.12b–2 ................................................................................................................... 27
`
`49 U.S.C. § 30106(d)(1) ................................................................................................................ 27
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 8 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`8 Del. C. § 203(c)(1) ...................................................................................................................... 26
`
`8 Del. C. § 203(c)(4) ...................................................................................................................... 27
`
`9 U.S.C. § 1 ................................................................................................................................... 31
`
`RULES
`
`SEC Rule 12b-2 ............................................................................................................................. 27
`
`SEC Rule 405 ................................................................................................................................ 27
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`N.Y. Banking Law § 6–l(1)(a) ...................................................................................................... 27
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 9 of 46
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class of direct purchaser consumers, allege that
`
`Defendants Fanatics, Inc; the National Football League (“NFL”); NFL Properties; NFL
`
`Enterprises; and each of the 32 NFL Teams conspired to eliminate their smaller competitors and
`
`consolidate monopoly power in Fanatics, so that all Defendants could share in the resulting
`
`monopoly profits.
`
`Likely preferring the secrecy and limited discovery available in arbitration, Defendants
`
`contend that the named Plaintiffs agreed to mandatory arbitration provisions included in the
`
`“Terms of Use” of either www.Fanatics.com (Plaintiffs Dunn, Maldonado, Marckmann) or
`
`www.NFLShop.com (Plaintiff Santos) or both (Plaintiff Hibbs). On the basis of those two Terms
`
`of Use, Defendants ask the Court to compel all Plaintiffs to arbitrate all of their claims against all
`
`Defendants. The motion must be denied, either in full or at least in part, for four primary reasons.
`
`First, Plaintiffs did not agree to either website’s Terms of Use because no Plaintiff had
`
`actual notice of the terms and none of the hyperlinks used to present the terms were reasonably
`
`conspicuous. As Harry Brignull, a Ph.D. cognitive scientist and expert in the use of “dark patterns”
`
`to direct (or misdirect) consumers’ attention, explains, the Terms of Use hyperlinks on both
`
`websites are below the visible screen, obscured by the virtual keyboard (on mobile devices), and
`
`presented in the smallest, lowest contrast text on the page. To find inquiry notice, the Second
`
`Circuit requires that the relevant text be evaluated in the context of the full page. Nicosia v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 237 (2d Cir. 2016). When so considered here, Defendants’ Terms
`
`of Use hyperlinks fail that test. See Part IV.
`
`Second, even if Plaintiffs were on inquiry notice—which they were not—the arbitration
`
`provisions’ scope does not include claims based on purchases made on other websites. That is, the
`
`Fanatics.com Terms of Use only apply to purchases made on Fanatics.com, and the NFLShop.com
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 10 of 46
`
`
`
`Terms of Use only apply to purchases made on NFLShop.com. Neither applies to the other, or to
`
`third-party sites like Amazon.com. This is an issue for the Court to decide because neither Terms
`
`of Use contains “clear and unmistakable” language to the contrary. See Part V.
`
`Third, separately from the issue of scope, the Court must also find that those Defendants
`
`who are not expressly named in the Terms of Use may not enforce the arbitration provisions in
`
`which they are not named. Neither website’s Terms of Use shows an objective intention to give
`
`those Defendants the right to enforce the Terms, and none of the unnamed Defendants are
`
`“affiliates” of the entities that are named. Defendants’ alternative request to compel arbitration
`
`under the principles of equitable estoppel should be rejected under controlling Second Circuit
`
`precedent. See Part VI.
`
`Fourth, as an independent basis for denying Defendants’ motion, Defendants have not
`
`submitted evidence of the actual Fanatics.com Terms of Use that they seek to enforce. Under
`
`Second Circuit law, Defendants’ unauthenticated screen shots from an internet archive service and
`
`the testimony of Fanatics’ employee as to those terms are inadmissible. Without evidence of the
`
`actual terms, Defendants have no basis to compel Plaintiffs to arbitrate. See Part VII.
`
`II.
`
`THE RELEVANT PLAINTIFF TRANSACTIONS
`
`As the bases for their Motion to Compel Arbitration, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs
`
`agreed to mandatory arbitration provisions in conjunction with the following transactions:
`
`Name
`
`Date
`
`Action
`
`Website
`
`Platform
`
`Lesia Dunn
`
`Lesia Dunn
`
`Lesia Dunn
`
`5/9/2021
`
`Purchase
`
`Fanatics.com
`
`Mobile
`
`6/25/2020
`
`Purchase
`
`Fanatics.com
`
`Desktop
`
`11/19/2018 Account Creation Fanatics.com
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 11 of 46
`
`Louis Hibbs1
`
`6/5/2021
`
`Purchase
`
`NFLShop.com Mobile
`
`Louis Hibbs
`
`Louis Hibbs
`
`1/4/2020
`
`Purchase
`
`NFLShop.com
`
`Desktop
`
`12/30/2019 Account Creation Fanatics.com
`
`Saul Maldonado2
`
`8/17/2019 Account Creation Fanatics.com
`
`Kimberly Marckmann3 6/28/2017 Account Creation Fanatics.com
`
`Dean Santos4
`
`Dean Santos
`
`12/8/2021
`
`Purchase
`
`NFLShop.com Mobile
`
`3/2/2021
`
`Account Creation NFLShop.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As confirmed in Fanatics’ transactional data, each Plaintiff also made additional purchases that
`
`Defendants do not assert in their Motion as a basis to compel arbitration.5
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD & MOVING PARTY’S BURDEN
`
`“The threshold question facing any court considering a motion to compel arbitration is []
`
`
`1 Mr. Hibbs also made at least one purchase from Defendants through Amazon.com, where
`Defendants’ “Terms of Use” link was not presented. Ex. C, Hibbs Decl. ¶3.
`2 Defendants originally alleged that Mr. Maldonado assented to the NFLShop.com Terms of Use
`on two other occasions, both on October 16, 2021: (1) a purchase on NFLShop.com; and (2) by
`creating an account on NFLShop.com. Defs.’ Ex. A, Flinchbaugh Decl. ¶11. Fanatics’
`transactional data, however, reveals that Mr. Maldonado did not make either transaction as
`Defendants had alleged in their Motion. Defendants now agree that those transactions are not a
`basis to compel arbitration. Ex. G, August 15, 2022 Letter from Fanatics to Plaintiffs at 4–5.
`3 Defendants originally alleged that Ms. Marckmann assented to the Fanatics.com Terms of Use
`by making a purchase on February 18, 2021. Defs.’ Ex. A, Flinchbaugh Decl. ¶11. Fanatics’
`transactional data, however, reveals that Ms. Marckmann did not make the purchase as Defendants
`alleged. Defendants now agree that they do not assert that purchase as a basis to compel arbitration.
`Ex. G, August 15, 2022 Letter from Fanatics to Plaintiffs at 4–5.
`4 Defendants originally alleged that Mr. Santos assented to the NFLShop.com Terms of Use by
`making a purchase on October 6, 2021. Defs.’ Ex. A, Flinchbaugh Decl. ¶11. They have since
`withdrawn that purchase as a basis to compel arbitration. Ex. G, August 15, 2022 Letter from
`Fanatics to Plaintiffs at 4–5.
`5 See generally Ex. H, Excerpts from Fanatics’ Transactional Data.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 12 of 46
`
`
`
`whether the parties have indeed agreed to arbitrate.” Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp., 697 F.3d 110,
`
`118 (2d Cir. 2012) (“Inasmuch as the arbitrator has no authority of any kind with respect to a
`
`matter at issue absent an agreement to arbitrate, the question of whether such an agreement exists
`
`. . . is necessarily for the court and not the arbitrator.”).
`
`“The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of establishing the existence of
`
`an arbitration agreement.” Feld v. Postmates, Inc., 442 F. Supp. 3d 825, 829 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). In
`
`resolving “motions to compel [arbitration], courts apply a ‘standard similar to that applicable for
`
`a motion for summary judgment.’” Nicosia, 834 F.3d at 229 (quoting Bensadoun v. Jobe–Riat,
`
`316 F.3d 171, 175 (2d Cir. 2003)). The often invoked “federal policy favoring arbitration” does
`
`not apply when courts are determining whether an arbitration agreement exists in the first instance.
`
`Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 302 (2010) (emphasizing that the
`
`policy does not “override[] the principle that a court may submit to arbitration only those disputes
`
`. . . that the parties have agreed to submit”).
`
`A court must “‘consider all relevant, admissible evidence submitted by the parties and
`
`contained in pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
`
`with . . . affidavits,’ and draw[] all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Cooper
`
`v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., 990 F.3d 173, 179–80 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Nicosia, 834
`
`F.3d at 229). The court should not compel arbitration unless “there is no genuine issue as to any
`
`material fact and it is clear the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ryan v.
`
`JPMorgan Chase & Co., 924 F. Supp. 2d 559, 561–62 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
`
`IV.
`
`PLAINTIFFS DID NOT AGREE TO ARBITRATE THEIR CLAIMS
`BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ON NOTICE OF THE TERMS OF USE
`
`Plaintiffs are not bound to arbitrate their claims because they did not assent to Defendants’
`
`Terms of Use. To establish that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, Defendants bear the burden
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 13 of 46
`
`
`
`of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs either received actual notice
`
`of the terms of the contract, or that they were on inquiry notice of the terms. See Soliman v. Subway
`
`Franchisee Advert. Fund Tr., Ltd., 999 F.3d 828, 834–35 (2d Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs did not receive
`
`actual notice,6 and Defendants do not argue that they did. Nor were Plaintiffs on inquiry notice.
`
`To establish an enforceable contract under an inquiry notice theory, Defendants must
`
`establish by a preponderance of the evidence that “a ‘reasonably prudent’ person would be on
`
`inquiry notice of those terms and [the user] unambiguously manifested assent to those terms.” Id.
`
`at 834 (quoting Meyer, 868 F.3d at 74–75) (emphasis added). Whether a plaintiff received inquiry
`
`notice is a “fact-intensive inquiry.” Soliman, 999 F.3d at 835. A “person is on inquiry notice of
`
`[arbitration] terms if [the terms] are presented in a clear and conspicuous manner.” Id. (emphasis
`
`added). To assess conspicuousness, the court must evaluate whether a reasonably prudent internet
`
`user would have seen the Terms of Use in light of the whole webpage. Peiran Zheng v. Live
`
`Auctioneers LLC, 2021 WL 2043562, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2021); Berman v. Freedom Fin.
`
`Network, LLC, 30 F.4th 849, 856–57 (9th Cir. 2022). Courts look at the font size, color, contrast,
`
`and emphasis of the disclosure (both in isolation and in relation to other text on a page), and other
`
`images, text, hyperlinks, buttons, fields, and advertisements on the page. Nicosia, 834 F.3d at 237.
`
`The Second Circuit has recognized specific features of a webpage’s design and content that
`
`hinder a consumer’s ability to receive inquiry notice of terms contained in a hyperlink, including:
`
`• when the message alerting users of the terms and conditions is “not bold,
`capitalized, or conspicuous in light of the whole webpage”;
`
`• when the message on the webpage is obscured by various other links in differing
`colors, fonts, and locations;
`
`
`6 See Exs. B–F, Dunn Decl. ¶4; Hibbs Decl. ¶4; Maldonado Decl. ¶4; Marckmann Decl. ¶4; Santos
`Decl. ¶4.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 14 of 46
`
`
`
`• when other “buttons and promotional advertisements on the order page dr[a]w
`attention away from the message”; and
`
`• when the “customers’ personal address, credit card information, shipping options,
`and purchase summary” is on the webpage.
`
`Starke v. SquareTrade, Inc., 913 F.3d 279, 290–91 (2d Cir. 2019) (citations omitted) (quoting
`
`Nicosia, 834 F.3d at 237). Defendants contend that Plaintiffs are bound to arbitrate because they
`
`were on inquiry notice of the Terms of Use when they made purchases on desktop and mobile
`
`devices, and when they created accounts. As described below, however, a reasonably prudent
`
`person would not have been on inquiry notice for any of these purchases or account creations.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs were not on inquiry notice of the Terms of Use when they
`made purchases on a desktop computer.
`
`Defendants move to compel arbitration based on two purchases made on desktop
`
`computers, one each on Fanatics.com (Dunn, 6/25/20) and NFLShop.com (Hibbs, 1/4/2020).
`
`Neither Plaintiff received inquiry notice while making these purchases.
`
`1.
`
`The Terms of Use links are “below the fold”.
`
`When a user makes a purchase using a credit card on either Fanatics.com or NFLshop.com
`
`from a representative desktop computer,7 the Terms of Use link is below the visible screen,
`
`requiring the user to scroll past the button used complete the order process. Ex. A, Declaration of
`
`Harry Brignull at 22–24 (“Brignull Decl.”). Thus, neither Plaintiff had to see the disclosure to
`
`complete their purchase.
`
`A court “cannot presume that a person who clicks on a box that appears on a . . . screen has
`
`notice of all contents not only of that page but of other content that requires further action
`
`(scrolling, following a link, etc.).” Applebaum v. Lyft, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 3d 454, 466 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`
`7 Although the Parties use “desktop” computer to distinguish computers from mobile phone
`devices, both a laptop and traditional desktop computer are considered “desktop” computers.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 15 of 46
`
`
`
`2017) (citing Sgouros v. TransUnion Corp., 817 F.3d 1029, 1035 (7th Cir. 2016)). Therefore,
`
`requiring a plaintiff to scroll to see a disclosure of the Terms of Use is insufficient to put the user
`
`on inquiry notice. Compare Specht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 23, 31 (2d Cir.
`
`2002) (refusing to enforce terms of use that “would have become visible to plaintiffs only if they
`
`had scrolled down to the next screen”) and Metter v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-cv-06652-
`
`RS, 2017 WL 1374579 (N.D. Cal. April 17, 2017) (denying motion to compel arbitration where
`
`sign-in-wrap agreement was only visible if user scrolled down, an action not necessary to complete
`
`the sign up process) with Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66, 78 (2d Cir. 2017) (finding terms
`
`enforceable where “[t]he entire screen is visible at once, and the user does not need to scroll beyond
`
`what is immediately visible to find notice of the Terms of Service”).
`
`Defendants do not cite a single case that found users assented to terms of use where the
`
`disclosure was “below the fold” and did not require a separate physical manifestation of assent
`
`(i.e., a click box next to the terms).8 Instead, the cases Defendants cite involved disclosures that
`
`were more conspicuous and required a much greater manifestation of agreement. See e.g., Camilo
`
`v. Lyft, Inc., 384 F. Supp. 3d 435, 437–38 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (J. Carter) (finding valid arbitration
`
`agreement where user had to push “I accept” button on screen and user was provided “opportunity
`
`to scroll through the entire updated terms . . . before accepting the terms.”); Kai Peng v. Uber
`
`Techs., Inc., 237 F. Supp. 3d 36, 43 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (“In order to use the Uber App to receive
`
`
`8 “Below the fold” is a term of art in the industry that refers to text or content that appears beneath
`the bottom of the visible screen as displayed to user and that therefore requires the user to scroll
`down to see it. Bernardino v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., cited by Defendants, discusses
`the possibility of the disclosure being below the fold on a mobile device, but concluded that
`plaintiff’s testimony that it was her “usual practice” to shop online in portrait mode was insufficient
`where the disclosure was above the fold in portrait mode. No. 17CV04570LAKKHP, 2017 WL
`7309893, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2017), report and recommendation adopted as modified, No.
`17-CV-4570 (LAK), 2018 WL 671258 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2018). Here, the disclosure is below the
`fold on desktop and mobile, in any orientation.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02289-ALC Document 70 Filed 09/02/22 Page 16 of 46
`
`
`
`transportation requests, Uber drivers had to click on a “YES, I AGREE” box twice to indicate
`
`assent to Uber’s Services Agreement.”). And one of Defendants’ cases found a disclosure
`
`conspicuous specifically because it was above, not below, the action button. Temple v. Best Rate
`
`Holdings LLC, 360 F. Supp. 3d 1289, 1304 (M.D. Fla. 2018).
`
`2.
`
`The Terms of Use links are not presented in a clear and
`conspicuous manner in light of the whole page.
`
`Even if a user scrolls down the page, the Terms of Use links are not presented in a
`
`conspicuous manner when evaluated in light of the full page. See Nicosia, 834 F.3d at 237; Peiran
`
`Zheng, 2021 WL 2043562, at *4; Berman, 30 F.4th at 856–57. Instead, the Terms of Use link on
`
`each website is presented in an obscure manner such that a user’s attention is drawn to everything
`
`but the Terms of Use. See generally Brignull Decl. at 27–30. Beginning in the top left corner of
`
`each page and running the entire width of the website is a countdown clock in large text on a
`
`yellow background offering “Free Shipping.” Id. at 34. This “pressure selling technique” and
`
`others (e.g., “PR