992 F.3d 1209
11th Cir.2021Background
- Hearn signed a Comcast Subscriber Agreement (received in a Welcome Kit) that included a default Arbitration Provision covering “any claim or controversy related to Comcast” and surviving termination; he did not opt out.
- Hearn terminated Comcast service in August 2017. In March 2019 he called Comcast to inquire about obtaining/reinstating service at the same address.
- During that call Comcast ran a credit check using personally identifying information on file, which Hearn alleges occurred without his permission and lowered his credit score.
- Hearn sued Comcast in federal court under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); Comcast moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
- The district court denied the motion, finding Hearn’s FCRA claim did not relate to the Subscriber Agreement; Comcast appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed: it held Hearn’s FCRA claim relates to the Subscriber Agreement (pointing to reconnection and credit-inquiry provisions and Comcast’s access to Hearn’s prior account data) and remanded for resolution of remaining defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hearn’s FCRA claim "arises out of" or "relates to" the Subscriber Agreement so as to be arbitrable | Claim does not relate: services had been terminated and the call was to open a new account, not to reconnect under the prior agreement | Claim relates: prior Agreement (which survives termination) covers reconnection and authorizes credit inquiries; Comcast used info from the prior account | Held: Claim relates to the Agreement; arbitration compelled on that basis |
| Whether the Arbitration Provision is overly broad or unconscionable | Provision is unreasonably broad and thus unenforceable | Broad arbitration clauses are enforceable under the FAA and Eleventh Circuit precedents | Held: Court did not resolve the broader enforceability/unconscionability question; remanded for district court to address remaining arguments |
| Whether the disputed factual issue (reconnect vs. new account) precludes compelling arbitration at this stage | Factual dispute must be resolved for nonmovant; district court sided with Hearn | Even accepting Hearn’s version, the Reconnection and Credit Inquiry provisions cover the situation; arbitration still applies | Held: Even viewing facts for Hearn, the claim relates to the Agreement, so arbitration appropriate |
| Validity/formation of the arbitration agreement | Hearn contended no valid arbitration agreement existed | Comcast pointed to the signed work order, Welcome Kit, and lack of opt-out | Held: Court treated the Agreement as valid for purposes of appeal; the dispute concerned scope rather than formation |
Key Cases Cited
- Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) (arbitration agreements enforceable like other contracts)
- CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95 (2012) (liberal federal policy favoring arbitration)
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985) (doubts about arbitrability construed in favor of arbitration)
- Bd. of Trs. of Delray Beach Police & Firefighters Ret. Sys. v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts. Inc., 622 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2010) (upholding broad arbitration clauses that cover disputes beyond contract text)
- Doe v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 657 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2011) (analyzing when tort claims relate to contracts for arbitrability)
- Telecom Italia, SpA v. Wholesale Telecom Corp., 248 F.3d 1109 (11th Cir. 2001) (standard for "arising out of or relating to" contract disputes)