Arbitration Unilateral addition Notice.

 
FREE EXCERPT

Byline: Mass. Lawyers Weekly Staff

Where a plaintiff brought a purported nationwide class action for allegedly illegal telemarketing calls, a motion by the defendant to compel arbitration should be denied, as the arbitration clause the defendant seeks to enforce was not inserted into the terms and conditions of the parties' contract until two years after formation of the contract.

"This case features a time-traveling arbitration clause. Faced with a purported nationwide class action against Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, Inc. ('HelloFresh') for allegedly illegal telemarketing calls, HelloFresh sought to compel the named plaintiff ('Murray') to arbitrate her claims. It argued that when she signed up for the service she clicked a box that signified her agreement to arbitrate future claims instead of litigating them in court.

"Now, at the time the box was clicked, HelloFresh's terms and conditions made no mention of arbitration. The arbitration clause was added two years later, long after Murray's sole use of HelloFresh's service. HelloFresh contends that Murray is nonetheless bound by the later-added terms because, when she clicked that box two years earlier, the terms and conditions stated that HelloFresh could unilaterally change the terms of the contract so long as it notified the customer and she agreed or was silent (which would be treated as agreement).

"This Court rejected HelloFresh's effort to...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP