Ironbeam, Inc. v. Evert, 417 F.Supp.3d 1031

Evert answered a Craigslist ad and agreed to open a futures trading account funded with $10,000 so a third‑party (Lon Richardson) would trade crude oil futures for him.
Evert opened the account on August 10, 2017 through DeepDiscountTrading, electronically signed the Ironbeam Customer Agreement, and represented he had trading experience and that no third‑party discretionary trader would trade his account, but he later gave his login/password to Richardson.
A clerk setting up Evert’s account failed to enable Ironbeam’s default risk protections; on August 14 Richardson placed large trades that produced a debit balance that grew to about $126,183.36 after liquidation.
Ironbeam liquidated 750 contracts, charged a $50 per contract liquidation fee ($37,500), paid the clearinghouse the deficit, and demanded reimbursement from Evert; he made partial payments and proposed a plan but currently owed ~$101,286.96 in debit balance.
Ironbeam moved for summary judgment on breach of contract (and alternatively on a settlement agreement); Evert counterclaimed under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and for breach of fiduciary duty, arguing the Customer Agreement was an adhesion contract and unconscionable.
The Court granted summary judgment to Ironbeam, holding the Agreement valid, awarding $138,786.96 plus interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees, dismissing the alternative count as moot, and rejecting both counterclaims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Customer Agreement (adhesion/unconscionability)	Agreement is a valid, enforceable contract	Agreement is contract of adhesion and procedurally/substantively unconscionable	Agreement is not adhesion or unconscionable; valid and enforceable
Breach / Liability for debit balance and liquidation fees	Evert agreed to cover losses, debit balance, and fees per the Agreement and fee schedule	Liquidation fee is an unenforceable liquidated‑damages penalty	Evert owes debit balance and $37,500 liquidation fee; fee treated as contractual/service fee, not liquidated damages; judgment entered
ICFA consumer fraud counterclaim	Ironbeam misrepresented its risk‑management (that accounts would be refused at 25% loss) inducing reliance	Any statements were after Evert’s loss and could not have induced his reliance	Claim fails — statements, if any, were post‑injury so no causal inducement of reliance
Breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim	Ironbeam failed to implement default protocols and/or usurped control, creating fiduciary obligations	Broker did not operate a discretionary account and merely executed orders	No fiduciary duty beyond faithful order execution; Ironbeam executed orders and did not usurp control; claim fails

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment factual‑dispute standard)
Razor v. Hyundai Motor Am., 854 N.E.2d 607 (Ill. 2006) (procedural unconscionability analysis)
Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 857 N.E.2d 250 (Ill. 2006) (substantive unconscionability factors)
Larned v. First Chicago Corp., 636 N.E.2d 1004 (Ill. App. 1994) (adhesion‑contract discussion)
Anspacher & Assocs., Inc. v. Henderson, 854 F.2d 941 (7th Cir. 1988) (fiduciary duty of broker to execute orders)
CFTC v. Heritage Capital Advisory Servs. Ltd., 823 F.2d 171 (7th Cir. 1987) (discretionary account = fiduciary relationship)
Saunders v. Michigan Ave. Nat’l Bank, 662 N.E.2d 602 (Ill. App. 1996) (overdraft fees not treated as liquidated damages)