Hoar v. Launch Pad Payment Services Corporation
1:24-cv-06195
| S.D.N.Y. | May 12, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (Hoar, Simmons, Arias), each from a different U.S. state, bring a class action against Launch Pad Payment Services Corp. (NY/DE) and Hotmart BV (Netherlands) for unauthorized charges and deceptive billing post-purchase from Hotmart’s online platform.
- Plaintiffs allege unauthorized recurring charges for various digital products and subscriptions following single authorized purchases via Hotmart’s online checkout.
- Hotmart’s checkout page includes hyperlinks to a "browsewrap" General Terms of Use (TOU) and a forum selection clause, specifying venue for suits depending on who processed the transaction (Brazilian, Dutch, or U.S. entity).
- Defendants move to dismiss, arguing improper venue under the TOU forum selection clause requiring suit in Amsterdam, Brazil, or SDNY, depending on the processing entity.
- Plaintiffs claim they did not assent to the TOU/forum clause and, alternatively, that their claims are not tied to specific transactions.
- Court holds that most claims would survive a 12(b)(6) motion, but discovery is needed to determine proper venue under the clause (i.e., which entity processed which transaction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Forum Selection Clause | Plaintiffs did not assent; not reasonably communicated | Clause is mandatory, conspicuous, controls | Clause is mandatory, reasonably communicated, applies |
| Scope: Transaction-Related v. Non-Transaction | Claim not tied to specific transaction, so Amsterdam | Claims are transaction-related; venue depends | Claims are transaction-related; venue per processor |
| Entity Processing Transaction (Venue Determination) | Launch Pad processed (so SDNY proper) | Depends on location/counterparty, not clear | Jurisdictional discovery needed, as unclear from record |
| Enforceability as Unreasonable/Unjust | (No argument; silent) | No reason against enforcement | No grounds shown for unreasonableness; clause enforced |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Audio Active Ltd., 494 F.3d 378 (2d Cir. 2007) (forum selection enforceability and required notice)
- Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016) (notice of online terms insufficient when not conspicuous)
- Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017) (online forum clause can be enforced where notice is clear)
- Roby v. Corp. of Lloyd's, 996 F.2d 1353 (2d Cir. 1993) (standards for unreasonableness of forum selection clauses)