Taylor v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 3:16-cv-50313

Michael Taylor (user) was given a Samsung Galaxy Note7 purchased by his employer, Taylorbuilt Farms, Inc.; the phone came with a "Health & Safety and Warranty Guide" that said use constituted acceptance of terms and that arbitration governed disputes with a 30-day opt-out from date of first consumer purchase.
The Guide was available as a hard copy in the box, on Samsung’s website, and on the phone under Settings > About Device > Legal Information.
Taylor was injured when the phone allegedly malfunctioned and caught fire while charging on the night of Sept. 12–13, 2016; the injury occurred before the 30-day opt-out window expired (opt-out deadline Sept. 16, 2016).
Taylor contended he never saw the Guide (because employer unboxed the phone) and argued he was not bound by its arbitration clause and that the clause was procedurally unconscionable and inapplicable to non-purchasers.
Samsung argued the Guide provided reasonable notice, Taylor manifested assent by using the phone and not opting out, the clause covered users and affiliates (including SEC), and the dispute falls within the broad arbitration scope.
The court granted Samsung’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice, finding an enforceable arbitration agreement, arbitrable claims, and Taylor’s refusal to arbitrate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there an enforceable agreement to arbitrate?	Taylor: he never saw the Guide and thus never agreed.	Samsung: Guide was available (box, phone, website); use of phone + no opt-out constitutes assent.	Held: Yes — reasonable opportunity to read; usage and failure to opt out manifested assent.
Could a non-purchaser/user be bound by the Guide?	Taylor: only the purchaser/original owner should be bound when hard copy discarded by purchaser.	Samsung: Guide binds users; employer/employee relationship and agency principles cover employee use.	Held: Yes — Guide’s language and agency principles bind users/employees; opt-out refers to first consumer purchaser but contemplates other users.
Was the arbitration clause procedurally unconscionable or hidden?	Taylor: clause buried on page 21; opt-out on page 23; therefore not conspicuous.	Samsung: clause and opt-out were referenced in the Guide intro and index; clause in all caps on page 21 and opt-out clearly explained.	Held: No — clause was sufficiently conspicuous; not procedurally unconscionable.
Do Taylor’s products-liability, negligence, and consumer-fraud claims fall within the clause’s scope?	Taylor: (implicit) claims belong in court, not arbitration.	Samsung: clause covers "all disputes ... arising in any way from ... sale, condition or performance" — broad scope.	Held: Yes — broad language covers these disputes; presumption of arbitrability applies.

Scheurer v. Fromm Family Foods LLC, 863 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2017) (federal policy favors arbitration; scope questions resolved for arbitration)
A.D. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 885 F.3d 1054 (7th Cir. 2018) (three-part test to compel arbitration)
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (offeree may accept by conduct where vendor permits acceptance by performance)
Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997) (terms inside product box bind users who keep/use product after opportunity to read and reject)
Boomer v. AT&T Corp., 309 F.3d 404 (7th Cir. 2002) (continued use after reasonable opportunity to reject can constitute acceptance)
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (any doubts about scope are resolved in favor of arbitration)