Sant v. RocketReach LLC
2:24-cv-01626
| W.D. Wash. | Jul 7, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Joseph Sant, Merton Chun, Ronesha Smith, and Heather Nicastro allege that RocketReach LLC used their personal information in free-preview and free-trial profile pages to promote its platform without consent or compensation.
- Plaintiffs brought a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the right of publicity laws in Washington, California, Illinois, and Ohio.
- RocketReach moved to compel individual arbitration and stay/dismiss the proceedings, citing an arbitration agreement in its Terms of Service (TOS) hyperlinked upon account creation.
- Plaintiffs asserted they never created accounts on RocketReach, never agreed to the TOS, and never authorized their attorneys to agree to arbitration on their behalf.
- Plaintiffs’ retainer agreements with their counsel were specifically limited to class action representation, excluding any authority to bind to individual arbitration.
- The court must decide whether Plaintiffs (or their counsel) ever agreed to be bound by the arbitration clause in the TOS and, if not, whether the case may proceed in court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs agreed to RocketReach's TOS | Plaintiffs never created accounts or agreed to TOS | They (or their attorneys) must have agreed in process | Plaintiffs did not agree to TOS themselves or via attorneys |
| Proper agency authority for counsel to bind client | Retainer limited to class action participation only | Counsel acted as agents with authority | No implied or actual authority to bind to arbitration |
| Ratification of arbitration by use of profile info | No benefit accepted; screenshots not a ratification | Plaintiffs benefitted from info used in complaint | Use of screenshots not benefit sufficient for ratification |
| Should discovery proceed on agency issue? | No agency present, so no discovery needed | Discovery needed to clarify agency relationship | No discovery allowed; motion denied on current record |
Key Cases Cited
- Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (sets out standard for compelling arbitration under FAA)
- Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (defines inquiry for existence and scope of arbitration agreements)
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1995) (courts apply state law contract principles to arbitration agreements)
- Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal of claims for lack of valid arbitration agreement appropriate without prejudice)