Little v. Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, 1:17-cv-03931

Background

Plaintiff Judy Little bought a Verizon mobile hotspot in a Verizon retail store on October 21, 2015 and electronically signed a sales receipt at purchase.
The sales receipt stated she agreed to the "current Verizon Wireless Customer Agreement" and expressly notified her that she was agreeing to "settlement of disputes by arbitration instead of jury trials" and that the Customer Agreement could be viewed online.
Little used the device briefly, returned it because it failed to work, but alleges Verizon continued to charge her and subsequently placed collection calls — forming the basis of her federal and state debt-collection claims.
Verizon moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) based on the Customer Agreement and sought a stay; Little opposed, arguing she never agreed to arbitrate and asserting signature/notice defects.
The court found the arbitration clause was valid and enforceable under West Virginia contract law and federal arbitration policy, held the class-action waiver applies, granted Verizon’s motion, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement exists	Little: she never agreed to arbitrate; sales receipt reference and online agreement do not incorporate terms she could not read	Verizon: the signed sales receipt expressly references the Customer Agreement and arbitration, giving notice and assent; West Virginia law enforces incorporation by reference when notice is adequate	Court: Valid arbitration agreement; Little assented via signed sales receipt and had opportunity to view terms online
Whether U-Haul (incorporation-by-reference requires contemporaneous access) controls	Little: U-Haul means a general reference is insufficient and requires actual receipt; she lacked notice and was surprised	Verizon: sales receipt explicitly references arbitration and provided notice before signing; unlike U-Haul, the arbitration language appeared in the signing document	Court: Distinguished U-Haul; sales receipt gave unmistakable reference and opportunity to access the Customer Agreement, so incorporation was effective
Whether plaintiff’s electronic signature or failure to read voids assent	Little: signature looks like a computer-generated loop and she didn’t read terms	Verizon: electronic signature and failure to read do not negate assent; business records support validity	Court: Signature appearance and not reading terms do not defeat assent; contract duties to read apply
Whether a class-action waiver is enforceable	Little: (implicitly) could pursue class claims	Verizon: Customer Agreement waives class actions; arbitration must be individual	Court: Class-action waiver applies; arbitration must proceed individually

Key Cases Cited

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (federal policy favoring arbitration and enforceability of arbitration agreements)
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (state-law principles govern contract formation for arbitration agreements)
Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681 (1996) (generally applicable contract defenses may invalidate arbitration clauses)
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (ambiguities about arbitrability should be resolved in favor of arbitration)
Sydnor v. Conseco Financial Servicing Corp., 252 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2001) (courts must compel arbitration when a valid agreement exists)
Whiteside v. Teltech Corp., 940 F.2d 99 (4th Cir. 1991) (elements required to compel arbitration under FAA)
U-Haul Co. of W. Virginia v. Zakaib, 752 S.E.2d 586 (W. Va. 2013) (a general reference to another document is insufficient to incorporate it absent clear reference and notice)
Aggarao v. MOL Ship Management Co., 675 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2012) (dismissal is proper when all issues are arbitrable)
PSINet, Inc. v. Chapman, 362 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 2004) (internet services implicate interstate commerce)