Lane v. Altice USA, 3:23-cv-00380

Jackie Lane, on behalf of a putative class, sued Suddenlink (now Optimum), challenging certain internet service fees as violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act.
Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on language in their Residential Services Agreement (RSA), pointing to Lane’s receipt of bills and email notice of new arbitration terms in June 2022.
Procedural history included prior plaintiffs who voluntarily dismissed their claims, leaving only Lane’s claims at issue.
The relevant factual dispute centers on whether Lane ever formed a valid arbitration agreement with Suddenlink, and if so, which version controls.
The court compared Lane’s situation to Gooch v. Cebridge Acquisition—where Suddenlink’s unilateral modification of arbitration terms was found unenforceable absent reasonable notice and mutual assent.
The court denied Suddenlink’s motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, finding genuine factual disputes regarding contract formation and ordering discovery on the issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of arbitration agreement	Unclear what version of RSA (if any) applies; may not have assented to any arbitration term	Lane accepted arbitration by paying bills referencing RSA; was notified via email about arbitration updates	Genuine issue of material fact exists regarding formation; discovery warranted
Enforceability of arbitration provision	Any applicable agreement is unconscionable, referencing Gooch precedent	Arbitration provision is binding and enforceable per service agreement and notice provided	Court declines to rule on unconscionability until contract formation is resolved
Notice of arbitration modification	No adequate proof of notice for RSA revisions before lawsuit	Notice was given by June 2022 email and ongoing reference in bills	Court finds June 2022 email provides reasonable notice if prior agreement existed; further facts needed
Stay of litigation	Request to stay pending appeal of Gooch if arbitration agreement found	Motion to compel/stay based on arbitration provision	Motion denied without prejudice as discovery is needed; stay request not reached

Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (scope and application of FAA, pro-arbitration policy)
Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Wood, 429 F.3d 83 (standard for compelling arbitration under the FAA)
Galloway v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 819 F.3d 79 (burden on party denying existence of arbitration agreement)
Chorley Enters., Inc. v. Dickey’s Barbecue Rests., Inc., 807 F.3d 553 (threshold factual issues in arbitration disputes)
Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (contract formation disputes for courts)
Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 724 S.E.2d 250 (West Virginia unconscionability doctrine in contracts)