Vargison v. Paula's Choice LLC, 2:24-cv-00342

Plaintiffs (107 individuals) brought a putative class action against Paula’s Choice, a skincare company, and two retailers, challenging the truthfulness of “cruelty-free” marketing regarding animal testing.
Paula’s Choice updated its website Terms of Use in March 2023 to include an arbitration agreement affecting any claims that had arisen or could arise between customers and the company.
On October 15, 2024, Paula’s Choice moved to compel arbitration and stay litigation as to eight named plaintiffs who had made post-update purchases; in their reply, they added Plaintiff Simmons as a ninth.
On January 30, 2025, the court compelled three plaintiffs to arbitrate (due to their notice and post-motion purchases) but held the motion in abeyance for others, not addressing Simmons.
Paula’s Choice then sought clarification about Simmons, arguing she should also be compelled to arbitrate; the court evaluated whether Simmons had sufficient notice that her continued participation in the class action would be affected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Simmons is compelled to arbitrate her claims due to post-motion purchases under new terms	Simmons was not named in the motion to compel and did not receive sufficient notice about the arbitration agreement’s effect on class rights	Simmons made purchases after the motion to compel and was on notice as a Named Plaintiff, so should be compelled to arbitrate	Simmons is not compelled to arbitrate; she did not receive adequate notice that her class claims could be waived

Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., [citation="815 F. App'x 612"] (2d Cir. 2020) (addressing notice and acceptance of arbitration agreements in online consumer contexts)
Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (standards for determining whether valid arbitration agreement exists)
Hansen v. LMB Mortg. Serv., Inc., 1 F.4th 667 (9th Cir. 2021) (procedural posture for assessing arbitrability under the FAA)