Heinz v. Amazon.com, Inc.
2:23-cv-00282
E.D. Cal.Jul 11, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Brian Heinz alleges Amazon recorded website chat conversations with customers without disclosing or obtaining consent, bringing claims under Cal. Penal Code § 632 and California UCL.
- Amazon’s Conditions of Use (hyperlinked in blue beneath account/order buttons) require acceptance at account creation, sign-in, and order placement and include a forum-selection clause naming state and federal courts in King County, Washington, a Washington choice-of-law clause, and a jury-trial waiver.
- Amazon moved to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Western District of Washington relying on the forum-selection clause; it alternatively moved to dismiss.
- Heinz argued he did not assent to the Conditions, the forum clause is unconscionable, the jury-waiver conflicts with California public policy, and Washington law would undermine California privacy protections/remedies.
- Amazon stipulated that plaintiff’s unwaivable rights under California law (including jury rights) would be preserved in the Western District of Washington; the court found the Conditions conspicuous and enforceable and granted the transfer, declining to reach the dismissal motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of forum-selection clause (assent/unconscionability) | Heinz: never saw/assented to Conditions; clause is unconscionable/adhesive | Amazon: Conditions were conspicuous (hyperlink under buttons), accepted repeatedly; clause is mutual and severable | Clause enforceable; assent found and forum clause not unconscionable |
| Pre-dispute jury-trial waiver conflict with California law | Heinz: CA prohibits pre-dispute jury waivers; clause violates CA public policy | Amazon: will stipulate to preserve plaintiff’s California jury rights in WA | Stipulation cures jury-rights concern; waiver does not defeat enforcement |
| Choice-of-law (Washington) and privacy remedies under CA law | Heinz: WA law limits remedies (actual damages) and would undermine CA privacy policy so forum clause unenforceable | Amazon: WA also protects privacy; basic remedies available and WA courts are fair | Availability of remedy in WA sufficient; policy exception not met |
| Transfer under § 1404(a) given Atlantic Marine adjustments | Heinz: CA has strong interest (class of CA residents) and familiarity with governing law | Amazon: parties agreed to WA forum; public-interest factors favor WA or do not overwhelmingly disfavor transfer | Transfer granted under § 1404(a); public-interest factors do not overcome forum clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (forum-selection clauses should be enforced and alter §1404(a) analysis; only public-interest factors remain)
- M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972) (forum-selection clauses presumptively valid; party opposing enforcement bears heavy burden)
- Yei A. Sun v. Advanced China Healthcare, Inc., 901 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2018) (public-policy exception to forum-selection enforcement requires clear statutory/judicial statement; availability of some remedy in transferee forum matters)
- In re County of Orange, 784 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2015) (apply state law when it is more protective than federal law for evaluating pre-dispute jury-waiver validity)
- Grafton Partners v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.4th 479 (2005) (California rule on enforceability of pre-dispute jury waivers)
- Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal.4th 95 (2006) (California recognizes privacy as a fundamental state policy)
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 279 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2002) (unenforceable contract provisions may be severed; arbitration/consent principles on unconscionability cited)
- Intershop Communications v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. App.4th 191 (2002) (forum-selection clauses in adhesion contracts are enforceable if adequately communicated)