Doe v. TruthFinder, LLC, 3:21-cv-06559

Plaintiff Robert Williams sued TruthFinder, LLC under the FCRA, California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and California Unfair Competition Law after his girlfriend viewed a TruthFinder report identifying him as a convicted sex offender; Williams denies the report’s accuracy.
Williams became a TruthFinder customer in May 2020 and agreed to TruthFinder’s Terms of Service (ToS) that included a broad arbitration clause and an explicit delegation clause sending arbitrability questions to an arbitrator; the ToS states it is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and administered under AAA rules.
Williams filed suit in state court in April 2021; the case was removed to federal court and TruthFinder moved to compel arbitration (or alternatively to dismiss).
Williams did not meaningfully contest contract formation or TruthFinder’s evidence that he agreed to the ToS; his only arbitration objection was that his claims arise from his girlfriend’s use of TruthFinder, not his own activity.
The Court found TruthFinder carried its burden to show an agreement to arbitrate and that the ToS contains a valid delegation clause, so the arbitrability issue must be decided by an arbitrator.
The federal action was stayed and administratively closed pending the arbitrator’s decision on arbitrability; the Court ordered the parties to notify the Court of the arbitrator’s decision and to file joint status reports every 90 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of a binding arbitration agreement	Williams implicitly contends his claims shouldn’t be arbitrated but did not challenge formation	TruthFinder: Williams agreed to the ToS containing the arbitration clause when he created an account	Court: TruthFinder met its burden; Williams agreed to the ToS and arbitration clause
Who decides arbitrability (delegation clause)	Williams argued claims relate to girlfriend’s activity and thus are not arbitrable	TruthFinder: ToS expressly delegates "the issue of arbitrability" to the arbitrator	Court: The delegation clause is valid; arbitrator decides arbitrability (citing Rent‑A‑Center framework)
Whether claims arising from third‑party use fall outside arbitration	Williams: Claims derive from girlfriend’s use, not his conduct, so not subject to arbitration	TruthFinder: Broad ToS covers all disputes between user and company; arbitrability question delegated	Court: Whether claims fall outside arbitration is an arbitrability question for the arbitrator to resolve

Williams v. Eaze Sols., Inc., 417 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (upholding and applying delegation‑clause principles)
Rent‑A‑Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) (parties may validly delegate arbitrability questions to an arbitrator)