Degraphenreed v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC
3:24-cv-00283
| M.D. Tenn. | Jan 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff David DeGraphenreed, acting pro se, entered into a written agreement for residential internet services with Comcast Cable Communications LLC in January 2022.
- The agreement included a conspicuous arbitration clause, which DeGraphenreed accepted during the online sign-up process and did not opt out of within the stated 30-day period.
- In December 2023, Comcast notified DeGraphenreed of a data breach that may have involved personal information, allegedly resulting from a Citrix vulnerability.
- DeGraphenreed submitted a pre-suit notice to Comcast and, after not receiving a satisfactory response, filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging consumer protection and common law claims related to the data breach.
- Comcast moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the case, citing the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). DeGraphenreed opposed the motion, primarily contesting the enforceability of the arbitration provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of the Agreement as a Whole | Entire agreement is unenforceable due to breach by Comcast (deceptive/unfair practices). | Validity as a whole goes to arbitrator, not court. | Arbitrator decides; not the district court. |
| Unconscionability: Limitation of Discovery in Arb. | Discovery limitations unfairly prejudice DeGraphenreed. | Discovery limitations apply equally to both parties. | Arbitration is mutual and thus not unconscionable. |
| Unconscionability: Notice/Accessibility of Provision | Arbitration provision was "buried" in legalese. | Provision was clearly disclosed in bold, capitalized text. | No genuine dispute of unconscionability. |
| Unconscionability: Clickwrap Agreement as Duress | "Clickwrap" form is inherently unfair, signed under duress. | Clickwrap/browsewrap agreements are routinely upheld and enforceable. | Not unconscionable on this basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (liberal federal policy favoring arbitration; FAA mandates enforcing arbitration agreements)
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (arbitration favored; doubts resolved in favor of arbitration)
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (arbitration is a matter of contract; cannot compel arbitration unless agreed)
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574 (arbitrability determined by parties' contract)
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (challenges to contract as a whole to be decided by arbitrator, not courts)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard: genuine issue of material fact required to proceed to trial)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party's burden on summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show genuine issue exists to avoid summary judgment)