Zuniga v. Major League Baseball
196 N.E.3d 12
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Zuniga was struck in the face by a foul ball at Wrigley Field after entering with a paper ticket her father gave her.
- The ticket front contained minimal text directing holders to terms on the reverse and to www.cubs.com/ticketback; the reverse had a short summary and an arbitration-summary paragraph but not the full arbitration text.
- The full terms (only accessible via the website or Cubs administrative office) contained an eight‑paragraph mandatory arbitration agreement with a seven‑day opt‑out requiring an account number.
- Zuniga averred she never read ticket fine print, never visited the website, had no account number, and was incapacitated after injury (unable to read for at least seven days).
- MLB and the Cubs moved to compel arbitration; the trial court denied the motion, finding the arbitration clause procedurally unconscionable because it was effectively hidden and unlikely to be noticed/assented to by a ticket user.
- The appellate court (First District, Second Division) affirmed, reviewing unconscionability de novo and holding the arbitration provision unenforceable on procedural (and some substantive) unconscionability grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of arbitration clause incorporated by reference on a paper event ticket | Zuniga: clause was procedurally unconscionable and unenforceable because it was hidden in tiny print and required accessing a separate website or office to read the full agreement | MLB/Cubs: the ticket reasonably notified users of the terms; the summary and website notice were conspicuous enough to bind users | Held: Clause unenforceable — procedurally unconscionable because the full terms were not reasonably communicated; some substantive unconscionability (7‑day opt‑out and account‑number requirement) reinforced the result |
| Whether MLB is bound by the Cubs’ ticket terms | Zuniga: arbitration provision in ticket/terms did not apply to MLB | MLB/Cubs: MLB is within the scope of the arbitration agreement | Held: Court agreed the agreement reached MLB but still refused to compel arbitration due to unconscionability |
| Standard of review for denial of motion to compel arbitration | Zuniga: (argued) trial court made factual findings (urged abuse of discretion) | MLB/Cubs: de novo review appropriate because there was no evidentiary hearing and facts undisputed | Held: de novo review applied |
| Whether procedural unconscionability requires more than adhesive contract/fine print | Zuniga: fine print + incorporation by reference + circumstances made assent unlikely | MLB/Cubs: adhesive contract and fine print are common; no extra overreaching shown | Held: Court required “added coercion/overreaching”; found it here given the concealment, context of ticket use, and burdensome access to full terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 223 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2006) (procedural unconscionability principles; signed contract/fine print analysis)
- Razor v. Hyundai Motor America, 222 Ill. 2d 75 (Ill. 2006) (procedural vs. substantive unconscionability; invalidation of onerous clause)
- QuickClick Loans, LLC v. Russell, 407 Ill. App. 3d 46 (Ill. App. Ct.) (standard of review for arbitration motions where no evidentiary hearing)
- Bess v. DirecTV, Inc., 381 Ill. App. 3d 229 (Ill. App. Ct.) (degree of procedural unconscionability may not always render clause unenforceable)
- Hubbert v. Dell Corp., 359 Ill. App. 3d 976 (Ill. App. Ct.) (hyperlinks and online notice can furnish adequate notice of terms)
- ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (use of tickets or similar instruments can bind users to terms if reasonably communicative)
- Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 383 Ill. App. 3d 129 (Ill. App. Ct.) (reasonable communicativeness test for ticketed events)