Presson v. Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC
1:24-cv-00170
| S.D.N.Y. | Mar 4, 2025Background
- James Presson sued Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC alleging that Alamo unlawfully charged convenience fees for online movie ticket purchases, in violation of NY Arts & Cultural Affairs Law § 25.07(4).
- Alamo operates theaters in New York and elsewhere, and its website disclosed the $1.89 per-ticket convenience fee only at the checkout stage—after seats were selected.
- Alamo moved to compel arbitration based on a purported online agreement or, alternatively, to dismiss the case under Rules 12(b)(1) (lack of standing) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
- The website's terms and conditions, which included an arbitration clause, were available by a hyperlink at checkout. Checking "Join Alamo Victory" (pre-checked by default) mentioned agreement to the terms, but clicking "Buy Tickets" had no such clear notice.
- Multiple supplemental authorities were cited by both sides addressing Article III standing, application of the voluntary payment doctrine, and burdens in online contract formation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compel Arbitration | No assent to terms; pre-checked box, no clear warning | Clicked "Buy Tickets" manifested assent | No contract formed; arbitration DENIED |
| Standing/Subject-Matter | Paid a fee made unlawful by late disclosure | No concrete harm; only procedural statutory violation | Sufficient injury alleged; motion DENIED |
| Voluntary Payment Doctrine | Doctrine does not bar claim; fee not disclosed until checkout | Knew about fee, paid voluntarily | Doctrine inapplicable at this stage |
| NYACAL Violation | Fee was disclosed too late, after purchase selection | Disclosure at checkout is sufficient | Statute requires earlier disclosure; plausible violation alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002) (online contracts require clear notice that an action constitutes assent)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (federal policy favoring arbitration)
- Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp., 697 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2012) (contract law governs existence of arbitration agreement)