Navarro v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 3:22-cv-00095

Background

Plaintiff Arnold Navarro filed a putative class action alleging SmileDirectClub (SDC) engaged in the unauthorized practice of dentistry and related consumer-law claims.
SDC operates a teledentistry platform; customers must create online accounts and assent to SDC’s Informed Consent, Terms & SmilePay Conditions (TOS) via a clickwrap checkbox before receiving services.
Navarro enrolled on SDC’s website on April 23, 2020; SDC’s server logs and sworn declarations (including archived Wayback Machine screenshots) show Navarro electronically accepted the TOS that day.
The TOS’s Informed Consent contains an arbitration clause; Navarro disputes he assented to arbitration but does not deny enrolling or that he was required to check the clickwrap box.
SDC removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration; the court ordered supplemental sworn evidence from SDC, reviewed Navarro’s objections, and stayed proceedings pending arbitration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Navarro assented to arbitration via the website registration	Navarro says the enrollment process did not put him on notice of arbitration and he did not receive AAA rules or other arbitration notices	SDC produced logs and sworn declarations showing a required affirmative clickwrap acceptance of TOS (with hyperlinks to Informed Consent containing arbitration) on April 23, 2020	Court held Navarro assented by clicking the required box; clickwrap notice was sufficient to bind him to arbitration
Whether the arbitration clause is valid/enforceable and delegation of arbitrability	Navarro initially challenged enforceability and delegation but withdrew those challenges in supplemental brief	SDC argued the clause is valid and delegates gateway issues to the arbitrator	Because Navarro withdrew these arguments, the court did not address them on the merits and compelled arbitration once assent was found
Whether the website agreement was clickwrap vs. browsewrap (notice standard)	Navarro emphasized lack of actual notice and absence of separate dialog showing arbitration	SDC showed terms were presented adjacent to the checkbox, hyperlinked and required before proceeding — i.e., clickwrap	Court treated the agreement as clickwrap and applied the inquiry-notice/assent standard favoring enforceability
Admissibility/authentication of SDC’s supplemental evidence (Skinner, Meuti declarations, Wayback screenshots)	Navarro lodged numerous objections (authentication, e-signature, hearsay, best-evidence) arguing the declarations/screenshots are unreliable	SDC submitted sworn declarations, server logs, and archived screenshots; argued the form objections were improper at motion-to-compel stage	Court overruled objections, finding the contents admissible for the purpose of deciding the motion to compel (summary-judgment-like standard)

Key Cases Cited

Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (internet-contract formation; inquiry notice governs web agreement assent)
Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2004) (court determines existence and scope of arbitration agreement)
Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (resolve doubts about arbitrable issues in favor of arbitration)
Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (valid arbitration agreement must be enforced)
Lee v. Ticketmaster LLC, [citation="817 F. App'x 393"] (9th Cir. 2020) (notice adjacent to transaction button and hyperlink can constitute sufficient notice)
Peter v. DoorDash, Inc., 445 F. Supp. 3d 580 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (enforcing arbitration where terms were hyperlinked on sign-in/registration page)
Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LLC, 30 F.4th 849 (9th Cir. 2022) (noting that courts routinely find clickwrap agreements enforceable)
Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1992) (court may rely on affidavits at summary-judgment-like stages despite hearsay/best-evidence objections)