2023 Ark. App. 117
Ark. Ct. App.2023Background
- Ronnie and Debbie Francis subscribed to Suddenlink month-to-month for internet and TV and alleged repeated outages, unexplained billing increases (a $70 spike), wrongful late fees, and an unexpected disconnection requiring reconnection fees.
- Suddenlink moved to compel arbitration, relying on an installation work order Ms. Francis signed during a service transfer (technician used an iPad/iPhone) and monthly bills that stated payment constituted acceptance of the Residential Services Agreement (RSA) posted on Suddenlink’s website.
- Ms. Francis filed an affidavit denying she received paperwork or agreed to arbitration and said the technician was at the house only briefly.
- The Clark County Circuit Court denied Suddenlink’s motion to compel arbitration; Suddenlink appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding payment of invoices that referenced the RSA manifested assent to the RSA (including the arbitration clause) and that the claims fell within the RSA’s broad arbitration scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Francis) | Defendant's Argument (Suddenlink) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the parties form a valid arbitration agreement? | No written agreement; Ms. Francis never agreed or received paperwork. | Payment of monthly bills that reference the RSA and state payment confirms acceptance manifested assent. | Held for Suddenlink: payment of invoices referencing the RSA manifested assent. |
| 2. Is a signed writing required or defeated by statute of frauds? | Absence of a signed RSA means no enforceable agreement. | The RSA on Suddenlink’s website satisfies writing requirements; invoices incorporate it. | Held for Suddenlink: written arbitration provision on website is sufficient; statute-of-frauds argument fails. |
| 3. Are arbitration terms unenforceable due to lack of mutuality or unconscionability? | RSA/arb clause is one-sided (Suddenlink can unilaterally change terms), bars class relief, opt-out is difficult, so clause is unconscionable and lacks mutuality. | Arbitration clause imposes mutual obligations and permits small-claims actions; unilateral remedies outside arbitration don’t negate mutuality. | Held for Suddenlink: mutuality and unconscionability challenges rejected (no individualized proof of harm; clause is mutual as written). |
| 4. Do the Francises’ breach-of-contract and ADTPA claims fall within the arbitration clause’s scope? | Circuit court found claims outside scope. | RSA’s arbitration clause broadly covers "any and all disputes" relating to the relationship, including statutory claims. | Held for Suddenlink: claims fall within the broad arbitration scope; denial reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jorja Trading, Inc. v. Willis, 598 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2020) (Arkansas Supreme Court favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements and resolving doubts in favor of arbitration)
- Courtyard Gardens Health & Rehab., LLC v. Arnold, 485 S.W.3d 669 (Ark. 2016) (two-threshold inquiry: existence of agreement and scope of arbitration)
- Erwin-Keith, Inc. v. Stewart, 546 S.W.3d 508 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (standard of review and appellate deference on arbitration rulings)
- Asset Acceptance, LLC v. Newby, 437 S.W.3d 119 (Ark. 2014) (procedural posture and considerations when circuit court makes no specific findings)