273 So. 3d 1025
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Porter, a long-time MetroPCS prepaid customer, sued in a putative class action claiming MetroPCS mischarged sales tax on rebate purchases under Florida’s DTPA. MetroPCS moved to compel arbitration based on its terms of service.
- This court previously reversed a summary denial and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether an arbitration clause was part of a binding agreement.
- At the evidentiary hearing, MetroPCS presented its standard sale process: a triplicate start-of-service form (customer copy referencing terms and a URL) and a quick-start booklet in the phone box that referenced terms and arbitration.
- Porter testified he always left the store with only the phone and a receipt and denied receiving packaging/materials. MetroPCS monthly pre-litigation texts to Porter contained a hyperlink and the phrase “Terms&Conditions apply”; Porter saw these messages but never clicked the link. Post-litigation texts later expressly referenced arbitration and provided a URL.
- The trial court found Porter did not receive the sale documents, but did receive the texts; it concluded the texts did not put him on notice of arbitration and denied arbitration. The appellate court reviewed facts for competent, substantial evidence and law de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Porter agreed to arbitrate disputes under MetroPCS terms | Porter: he never received sale paperwork or packaging and had no notice of arbitration | MetroPCS: its sale forms, quick-start guide, and recurring payment texts put Porter on notice of terms including arbitration | Held: Porter had inquiry notice via conspicuous pre-litigation texts; arbitration compelled |
| Whether electronic notice (texts) suffices as browsewrap notice | Porter: mere link in texts is insufficient absent actual review | MetroPCS: monthly texts with link were conspicuous and accessible; Porter’s failure to click does not absolve him | Held: Conspicuous hyperlink in short, recurring texts put a reasonably prudent user on inquiry notice |
| Whether lack of receipt of physical materials defeats notice | Porter: not receiving box/booklet or customer copy negates assent | MetroPCS: only one adequate method of notice is required; texts alone suffice | Held: Because texts sufficed, absence of physical materials did not prevent finding of assent |
| Whether arbitration clause unconscionable | Trial court did not reach unconscionability; Porter argued unconscionability on appeal | MetroPCS preserved arbitration defense; argued unconscionability not decided below | Held: Court remanded unconscionability for trial court to decide in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Basulto v. Hialeah Auto., 141 So. 3d 1145 (Fla. 2014) (buyers cannot be compelled to arbitrate absent agreement)
- Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004) (internet contracting governed by traditional contract principles)
- Vitacost.com, Inc. v. McCants, 210 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (browsewrap enforced only with actual knowledge or conspicuous hyperlink creating inquiry notice)
- Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017) (offeree bound where reasonably prudent user would be on inquiry notice of terms)
- Sapp v. Warner, 141 So. 124 (Fla. 1932) (party cannot avoid notice by intentionally ignoring available information)
- Gainesville Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Weston, 857 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (standard of review: factual findings for substantial competent evidence; legal questions de novo)