JEFFREY PARRELLA, ETC. v. SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS, INC. (L-1207-19, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4283-19

In Dec. 2017 plaintiff received a mailed promotion offering three years of SiriusXM service for $99 purportedly to reactivate his 2009 Jeep radio. The mailer said: “See our Customer Agreement for complete terms.”
Plaintiff had a long history with SiriusXM (accounts from 2005, 2009, 2017) and had previously received welcome kits containing the same customer agreement.
When plaintiff tried to redeem the promotion online, the site would not apply it to his Jeep radio; after calling, he purchased a 12‑month plan with a two‑month trial, gave his credit card, and was told the customer agreement was available online or by request; he received a welcome kit containing the agreement before billing began.
The customer agreement contained a conspicuously‑labeled arbitration clause requiring informal claim notice then binding, individual arbitration of claims.
Plaintiff sued in June 2019 alleging violations of the NJ Consumer Fraud Act and other consumer statutes; defendants moved to dismiss and compel arbitration. The trial court found implied mutual assent to the arbitration clause and compelled arbitration.
The Appellate Division affirmed, holding plaintiff’s conduct (receipt/use/payment/renewal and prior relationship) established implied assent and the agreement complied with the Plain Language Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mutual assent existed to bind plaintiff to the arbitration clause	Plaintiff: never read/recall the agreement and therefore did not assent	Defendants: long relationship, receipt of mailed agreements, use of service and payment demonstrate implied assent	Held: Implied mutual assent established by conduct (use, payment, receipt, renewal); arbitration enforceable
Whether the arbitration clause complies with the Plain Language Act (PLA)	Plaintiff: font <10‑point and insufficient explanation of waiver; clause facially deficient under PLA	Defendants: PLA lists factors/guidelines; no strict font mandate; clause labeled and clear; online copy available	Held: PLA not violated; clause sufficiently conspicuous and explained waiver; online copy mitigates font concern
Whether plaintiff's statutory consumer claims fall within the arbitration clause	Plaintiff: disputes should not be forced into arbitration absent clear assent	Defendants: clause broadly covers any dispute and is enforceable	Held: Clause encompasses plaintiff's claims and arbitration is proper forum
Whether continued use/renewal and receipt of notices constitute acceptance	Plaintiff: lack of recollection and alleged lack of notice defeats acceptance	Defendants: continued payment, renewal notices, and prior mailed agreements show notice and acceptance	Held: Continued use and renewal after receiving the agreement evidenced assent and acceptance

Skuse v. Pfizer, Inc., 244 N.J. 30 (2020) (standard of appellate review for orders compelling or denying arbitration)
Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014) (arbitration/waiver‑of‑rights clauses must be clearly and unmistakably established and explain waiver of court/jury rights)
Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427 (1992) (assent to contract may be manifested by conduct creating an implied‑in‑fact contract)
Hirsch v. Amper Fin. Servs., LLC, 215 N.J. 174 (2013) (strong public policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements)
Kernahan v. Home Warranty Adm'r of Fla., Inc., 236 N.J. 301 (2019) (discussion of appellate review and deference in contract/arbitration contexts)
Garfinkel v. Morristown Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., P.A., 168 N.J. 124 (2001) (standard for waiver‑of‑rights clauses in consumer contracts)