Kravets v. Anthropologie, Inc., 0:22-cv-60443

Plaintiff Esta Kravets sued Anthropologie alleging violations of the TCPA for promotional text messages and sought class relief.
Defendant moved to compel individual arbitration and stay litigation, relying on an arbitration clause in the Anthropologie "Text Terms" presented during a website sign-up offering "GET FREE SHIPPING NOW."
The webflow: Text Terms (with bolded/underlined hyperlinks) were displayed immediately above the sign-up button; enrollment required clicking the button and sending an affirmative pre-populated opt-in text (a double-opt-in process).
Plaintiff argued she lacked actual or constructive notice (browsewrap vs. clickwrap), did not unambiguously assent, and asked for limited arbitration-specific discovery.
The Court treated the Text Terms as a browsewrap but found the placement and formatting gave inquiry notice; it also found manifest assent based on the button language and the double-opt-in text.
The Court denied arbitration-specific discovery, granted the motion to compel arbitration, stayed the case pending arbitration, and administratively closed the file.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists (notice/inquiry notice)	Kravets: Text Terms were inconspicuous (small font), more like browsewrap; hyperlinks not clearly clickable, so no constructive notice	Anthropologie: Terms were placed directly above the button with bold/underlined links; gave inquiry notice	Court: Although browsewrap, placement and link formatting were sufficiently conspicuous to provide inquiry notice
Whether Plaintiff unambiguously manifested assent	Kravets: Clicking the button did not unambiguously bind her; she lacked awareness of legal significance	Anthropologie: Button referenced signing up for email/texts and free shipping; plus double-opt-in text confirmed assent	Court: Manifest assent found—button text, preceding disclosures, and affirmative opt-in text established assent
Whether arbitration-specific discovery should be permitted	Kravets: Request to defer ruling and allow limited discovery to develop factual record	Anthropologie: No material factual dispute; record complete	Court: Denied—no genuine factual dispute warranting discovery
Whether litigation should be stayed pending arbitration	(Not addressed substantively)	Anthropologie: Mandatory stay under FAA §3 if arbitration agreement governs	Court: Granted stay as arbitration is compelled

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985) (strong federal policy favoring arbitration)
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (federal policy favoring arbitration and stays)
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985) (courts must enforce arbitration agreements)
Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (2010) (question of arbitrability depends on contract formation)
First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (apply ordinary state-law contract principles to formation)
Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consol. Invs., 553 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2008) (FAA embodies liberal federal policy favoring arbitration)
Hearn v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 992 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2021) (motions to compel treated like summary judgment; no genuine dispute standard)
Arencibia v. AGA Serv. Co., 533 F. Supp. 3d 1180 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (distinguishing clickwrap vs. browsewrap and related notice principles)
Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, 30 F.4th 849 (9th Cir. 2022) (hyperlink conspicuity requirements for browsewrap notice)
Klay v. All Defendants, 389 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. 2004) (stay is mandatory under FAA §3 when dispute is arbitrable)