748 F.Supp.3d 1036
D. Kan.2024Background
- Plaintiffs Jasmine Bretto and Naomi Kopinsky bought movie tickets on AMC’s website and allege AMC unlawfully shared their transaction info with Facebook in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).
- Plaintiffs filed a federal class action seeking legal and equitable relief.
- AMC moved to compel arbitration, arguing that purchasing tickets meant plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate. Alternatively, AMC sought dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- Plaintiffs denied ever agreeing to arbitration. Disputed screenshots of the AMC checkout process were key evidence.
- The court had to decide if a binding arbitration agreement was created by the website’s checkout process before addressing the motion to dismiss.
- AMC also requested to stay briefing on the motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to withdraw that motion without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a binding arbitration agreement? | No clear assent; notice was insufficient and not visible during checkout. | Plaintiffs agreed by clicking “Purchase”; terms were linked on the page. | No binding agreement; notice was not sufficiently conspicuous. |
| Should the court compel arbitration? | No, because no contract to arbitrate existed. | Yes, because the ticket purchase process was sufficient. | Motion to compel arbitration denied. |
| Should briefing on the motion to dismiss be stayed? | No, further delay is unwarranted. | Yes, to preserve appeal rights. | Request to stay denied. |
| Should AMC be allowed to withdraw its motion to dismiss? | Neutral; withdrawal is not prejudicial. | Should be allowed to withdraw without prejudice. | Allowed to withdraw motion to dismiss without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court held for a strong federal policy favoring arbitration.)
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (Court reiterated that arbitration is a matter of contract and consent.)
- Granite Rock Co. v. Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (Arbitration clause enforceability depends strictly on mutual consent.)
- Riley Mfg. Co. v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 157 F.3d 775 (Presumption of arbitrability only applies if a valid agreement exists.)
- Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66 (Distinguishing between types of online contract formation; notice and proximity matter.)
- Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220 (Spatial relationship and prominence of terms impact enforceability of online agreements.)