Berkson v. Gogo LLC
Decision Date | 08 April 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 14–CV–1199.,14–CV–1199. |
Citation | Berkson v. Gogo LLC, 97 F.Supp.3d 359 (E.D. N.Y. 2015) |
Parties | Adam BERKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Kerry Welsh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOGO LLC, and Gogo Inc., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
George Volney Granade, II, Michael Robert Reese, Reese LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Anthony Joseph Laura, Epstein Becker Green, New York, NY, for Defendants.
Table of Contents I. Introduction 365 II. Procedural History 367 III. Facts 368 A. Defendant Gogo 368 B. Monthly Service Charge 368 C. Plaintiff Welsh 368 1. Sign–In Portal in August 2011 370 2. Create Account Page 371 D. Plaintiff Berkson 373 1. Sign–In Portal Since 2012 373 2. Create Account Page 374 E. Relationship Between Gogo Inc. and Gogo LLC 376 IV. Assessing Attributes of the “Average Internet User” 377 A. Studies 377 B. Anecdotal Evidence 381 C. The Reasonable Communicativeness Test 381 V. Contract Formation and Assent 383 A. Legal Research and Scholarship 383 1. “Informed Minority” Hypothesis 383 2. American Bar Association Working Group 384 3. Traditional Contract Doctrine and the Internet Age 384 B. Law 387 1. Choice of Law 387 2. Common Law Contracting 388 a. Acceptance 388 b. Adhesion Contracts 388 c. Unconscionability 391 i. Procedural 391 ii. Substantive 391 d. Material Terms and Material Alterations 392 e. Notice 393 3. Electronic Adhesion Contracts 394 a. Browsewrap 395 b. Clickwrap 397 c. Scrollwrap 398 d. Sign–in–wrap 399 e. General Principles 401 4. Assessing Validity and Enforceability of Electronic Adhesion Contracts 402 C. Application of Law to Facts 403 1. Plaintiff Welsh 403 2. Plaintiff Berkson 403 3. Generally 404 VI. Constitutional Standing 405 A. Law 405 1. Motion to Dismiss Standard 405 2. Putative Class Representatives Cannot Be “Picked Off” by Defendants 406 a. Supreme CourtCases 406 i. Deposit Guarantee Nat'l Bank v. Roper 406 ii. Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symzcyk 407 b. Relevant Court of Appeals Rulings 408 i. Offers of Judgment Must Fully Satisfy Claims 408 ii. Acceptance of an Offer of Settlement Does Not Necessaril y Moot a Case or Controversy 409 c. Other Court Decisions 409 3. Putative Class Representatives Cannot Be Paid Off By Sidestepping No–Contact Rule 410 B. Application of Law to Facts 411 1. Plaintiff Welsh 411 2. Plaintiff Berkson 412 VII. Disposition of Remaining Claims 413 VIII. Conclusion 413
There is a huge percentage of the United States population using the internet for purchases.See infraPart IV.In many instances, these consumers are accepting important contracts of adhesion when they order a product or service through a computer.With convenience has come much widened opportunities for consumer fraud and overreaching by merchants, as claimed in the present case.The instant putative class action involves purchase of internet service connection (“Wi–Fi”) on air flights.
PlaintiffsAdam Berkson and Kerry Welsh sue Gogo LLC and Gogo Inc.(collectively, “Gogo,”“the company,” or “defendants”).Alleged is that defendants improperly increased their sales and profits by misleading customers into purchasing a service that charged a customer's credit card, on an automatically-renewing continuing monthly basis, without adequate notice or consent.The graphics and text on defendants' website, it is argued, led internet consumers during the proposed class period—between February 2008 and December 2012—to believe that they were only buying a one-month subscription when they signed up for in-flight Wi–Fi through Gogo.Gogo's position is that the terms plaintiffs consented to not only clearly provided for automatic renewal, but that they included mandatory arbitration and waiver of venue protection.
Berkson, a New York State resident, claims that he sustained unauthorized charges to his credit card on October 25, 2012, November 26, 2012, and December 25, 2012.Welsh, a resident of California, posits that he suffered injury when he incurred unauthorized recurring charges over a sixteen-month span, from September 2011 through December 2012.
A variety of claims are pleaded in the amended class action complaint.Three causes of action are brought on behalf of a nationwide class—common law breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, common law unjust enrichment, and violation of various consumer protection statutes.A New York sub-class is alleged to have a claim under the State's General Business Law, section 349.Asserted on behalf of a California sub-class is violation of that State's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.Code § 1750 et seq., its Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq., and its False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17500 et seq.
Before the court are defendants' three motions: (1) to transfer venue; (2) to compel arbitration; and (3) to dismiss for lack of standing.
The motions to transfer venue and compel arbitration are premised on the company's “terms of use,” which defendants argue plaintiffs assented to online when they subscribed to Gogo's in-flight Wi–Fi.Plaintiff alleges that these terms and conditions were “hidden” and never seen, or agreed to, by them.Hidden provisions in an electronic contract of adhesion do not bind the parties; they cannot dictate venue or compel arbitration.
The central factual-legal question in the case is: were plaintiffs given effective notice of the need to make inquiry (“inquiry notice”) of the “terms of use,” in what can be characterized as Gogo's electronic contract of adhesion?The question is answered in the negative, compelling denial of defendants' motions on venue and arbitration.
Plaintiffs' standing depends on whether they suffered concrete and particularized injury on the dates their credit cards were billed for allegedly unauthorized charges.That Berkson was reimbursed by his credit card company when defendants refused to do so does not defeat his standing.Nor has Welsh's standing been negated because, when put on notice of the class action lawsuit, Gogo directly sent him—not his attorney—a settlement offer in the form of a full refund.Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing is denied.
The case raises three policy questions:
In the absence of documentary, testimonial, or expert evidence about the expertise of these plaintiffs with respect to internet use, the court inferred their average capacity and understanding as internet users when they ordered Gogo's services.Relied upon were exploratory sociological research about average internet users, limited empirical studies conducted by legal scholars and economists, and somewhat arbitrary assumptions by the court itself about the average internet user.
It is concluded that the average internet user would not have been informed, in the circumstances present in this case, that he was binding himself to a sign-in-wrap.The sign-in-wrap used in this case does not support the venue and arbitration clauses relied upon by defendants.It was open to defendants to show special circumstances indicating that the plaintiffs were aware, or should have been aware, of such clauses because of their special knowledge, but they have not done so.
Applied is a four-part test to analyze the validity of electronic contracts of adhesion generally.See infraPart V.B.4.This approach casts significant doubt on the validity of those sign-in-wrap and clickwrap agreements that fail to adequately present material terms to internet users.
A putative class representative's standing is not eliminated when a credit company reimburses him for grievances later filed against a third-party merchant.Credit card companies do not serve as shields for allegedly fraudulent merchants.
Filing of a mandatory putative class action demand letter under a state's consumer protection statute is the functional equivalent—for the purpose of providing notice—of filing a class action complaint in federal court.
Defendants' motions to transfer venue, compel arbitration, and dismiss the amended class action complaint are denied.
On February 25, 2014, Berkson filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.(Compl., Feb. 25, 2014, ECF No. 1.)On behalf of a New York sub-class, he alleged violation of New York General Business Law section 349, and, on behalf of a nationwide class, he alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of various consumer protection statutes.(Id. )A fourth cause of action on behalf of the nationwide class, unjust enrichment, was alleged in the alternative.(Id. )On the same day, a motion for class certification was filed.(Class Certification Mot., Feb. 25, 2014, ECF No. 5.)
On April 4, 2014, defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration or transfer the action to the Northern District of Illinois, or, alternatively, to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim.(Defs.' Mots. to Dismiss, Apr. 4, 2014, ECF No. 9.)
Three weeks later, on April 24, 2014, plaintiff Berkson, joined by plaintiff Welsh, filed an amended class action complaint adding three new causes of action for purported violations of several California statutes.(...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc.
... ... Uber Technologies, Inc. , 868 F.3d 66, 70-71, 81-82 (2d Cir. 2017) ; Berkson v. Gogo LLC, 97 F.Supp.3d 359, 372-373, 374-375 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), executing a purchase order, see, e.g., Nicosia , 834 F.3d at 227, 241-242, or ... ...
-
United States v. Bosyk
... ... that are underlined and highlighted in blue and that you can click on in order to open a new web page are an example of a hyperlink." Berkson v. Gogo LLC , 97 F. Supp. 3d 359, 373 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (citation omitted). 5 Relatedly, the content to which a URL navigates and the link ... ...
-
United States v. R.V.
... ... population in the United States using the internet in 2014), http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/latest-stats; see also Berkson v. Gogo LLC, 97 F.Supp.3d 359, 377 (E.D.N.Y.2015) (same). At this point, there was near-saturation usage among those living in households earning ... ...
-
Corwin v. NYC Bike Share, LLC
... ... Accordingly, most lower courts have enforced such contracts, absent extraordinary circumstances. See Berkson v. Gogo LLC , 97 F.Supp.3d 359, 397 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (collecting cases); Centrifugal Force, Inc. v. Softnet Commc'n, Inc. , No. 08-CV-5463 (CM), ... ...
-
Web Design Accessibility Can Aid Enforcement Of Terms
...for formal enforceability guidelines. Footnotes 1. Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66, 75 (2d Cir. 2017). 2. Berkson v. Gogo LLC, 97 F. Supp. 3d 359, 394-95 (E.D.N.Y. 3. Sarchi v. Uber Techs., Inc., 268 A.3d 258, 268 (2022 ME 8). 4. Meyer, 868 F.3d at 76. 5. Sellers v. JustAnswer LLC, ......
-
Electronic Signature Pads: I Didn’t See Those Terms
...(c) participate in a class or collective action? If not, then (a), (b) or (c) should not be enforced against the consumer. 97 F.Supp. 3d 359, 402 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). What Healthcare Providers Can To help ensure the validity of signature pad executions, healthcare providers should make sure tha......
-
Assent Uber Alles: Enforcing Browsewrap Agreements in Smartphone Applications
...in Berkson v. Gogo LLC, Judge Weinstein coined the term "sign-in wrap" for agreements that fall between browsewraps and clickwraps. 97 F. Supp. 3d 359, 366 (E.D.N.Y 2015).26. 1 Computer Contracts § 1.02(b) (2021).27. 1 Computer Contracts § 1.02(e) (2021). 28. 1 Computer Contracts § 1.02(b).......
-
“Sign-In Wrap” on Mobile Apps, 0517 SCBJ, SC Lawyer, May 2017, #30
...Kalanick, 2016 WL 4073012 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 29, 2016) (applying California law). [9] Id. at *5. [10] Id. at *9. [11] Berkson v. Gogo LLC, 97 F.Supp.3d 359 (E.D.N.Y. [12] Id. at 398. [13] The court cited as authority Fteja v. Face-book, Inc., 841 F.Supp.2d 829, 839 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), where the co......
-
“sign-in Wrap” on Mobile Apps
...Kalanick, 2016 WL 4073012 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 29, 2016) (applying California law). [9] Id. at *5. [10] Id. at *9. [11] Berkson v. Gogo LLC, 97 F.Supp.3d 359 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). [12] Id. at 398. [13] The court cited as authority Fteja v. Face-book, Inc., 841 F.Supp.2d 829, 839 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), where......