Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc.
Decision Date | 18 August 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 12–56628.,12–56628. |
Parties | Kevin Khoa NGUYEN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. BARNES & NOBLE INC., Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michelle C. Doolin (argued), Leo P. Norton, and Erin E. Goodsell, Cooley LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant–Appellant.
Gretchen Carpenter (argued), and Brian R. Strange, Strange & Carpenter, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 8:12–cv–00812–JST–RNB.
Before: JOHN T. NOONAN and KIM McLANE WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and ROSLYN O. SILVER, Senior District Judge.*
Barnes & Noble, Inc. (“Barnes & Noble”) appeals the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration against Kevin Khoa Nguyen (“Nguyen”) pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in its website's Terms of Use. In order to resolve the issue of arbitrability, we must address whether Nguyen, by merely using Barnes & Noble's website, agreed to be bound by the Terms of Use, even though Nguyen was never prompted to assent to the Terms of Use and never in fact read them. We agree with the district court that Barnes & Noble did not provide reasonable notice of its Terms of Use, and that Nguyen therefore did not unambiguously manifest assent to the arbitration provision contained therein.
We also agree with the district court that Nguyen is not equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration because he relied on the Terms of Use's choice of law provision.
We therefore affirm the district court's denial of Barnes & Noble's motion to compel arbitration and to stay court proceedings.
The underlying facts are not in dispute. Barnes & Noble is a national bookseller that owns and operates hundreds of bookstores as well as the website
In April 2012, Nguyen filed this lawsuit in California Superior Court on behalf of himself and a putative class of consumers whose Touchpad orders had been cancelled, alleging that Barnes & Noble had engaged in deceptive business practices and false advertising in violation of both California and New York law. Barnes & Noble removed the action to federal court and moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), arguing that Nguyen was bound by the arbitration agreement in the website's Terms of Use.
The website's Terms of Use are available via a “Terms of Use” hyperlink located in the bottom left-hand corner of every page on the Barnes & Noble website, which appears alongside other hyperlinks labeled “NOOK Store Terms,” “Copyright,” and “Privacy Policy.” These hyperlinks also appear underlined and set in green typeface in the lower lefthand corner of every page in the online checkout process.
Nguyen neither clicked on the “Terms of Use” hyperlink nor actually read the Terms of Use. Had he clicked on the hyperlink, he would have been taken to a page containing the full text of Barnes & Noble's Terms of Use, which state, in relevant part: “By visiting any area in the Barnes & Noble.com Site, creating an account, [or] making a purchase via the Barnes & Noble.com Site ... a User is deemed to have accepted the Terms of Use.” Nguyen also would have come across an arbitration provision, which states:
XVIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Any claim or controversy at law or equity that arises out of the Terms of Use, the Barnes & Noble.com Site or any Barnes & Noble.com Service (each a “Claim”), shall be resolved through binding arbitration conducted by telephone, online or based solely upon written submissions where no in-person appearance is required. In such cases, arbitration shall be administered by the American Arbitration Association under its Commercial Arbitration Rules (including without limitation the Supplementary Procedures for Consumer–Related Disputes, if applicable), and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
....
Any claim shall be arbitrated or litigated, as the case may be, on an individual basis and shall not be consolidated with any Claim of any other party whether through class action proceedings, class arbitration proceedings or otherwise.
....
Each of the parties hereby knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally waives any right it may have to a trial by jury in respect of any litigation (including but not limited to any claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, or third party claims) arising out of, under or in connection with these Terms of Use. Further, each party hereto certifies that no representative or agent of either party has represented, expressly or otherwise, that such a party would not in the event of such litigation, seek to enforce this waiver of right to jury trial provision. Each of the parties acknowledges that this section is a material inducement for the other party entering into these Terms of Use.
Nguyen contends that he cannot be bound to the arbitration provision because he neither had notice of nor assented to the website's Terms of Use. Barnes & Noble, for its part, asserts that the placement of the “Terms of Use” hyperlink on its website put Nguyen on constructive notice of the arbitration agreement. Barnes & Noble contends that this notice, combined with Nguyen's subsequent use of the website, was enough to bind him to the Terms of Use. The district court disagreed, and Barnes & Noble now appeals.
“We review the denial of a motion to compel arbitration de novo.” Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp., 533 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir.2008). Underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error, Balen v. Holland Am. Line Inc., 583 F.3d 647, 652 (9th Cir.2009), while “[t]he interpretation and meaning of contract provisions” are reviewed de novo, Milenbach v. Comm'r, 318 F.3d 924, 930 (9th Cir.2003).
The FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., requires federal district courts to stay judicial proceedings and compel arbitration of claims covered by a written and enforceable arbitration agreement. Id. § 3. The FAA limits the district court's role to determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, and whether the agreement encompasses the disputes at issue. See Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir.2000). The parties do not quarrel that Barnes & Noble's arbitration agreement, should it be found enforceable, encompasses Nguyen's claims. The only issue is whether a valid arbitration agreement exists.
In determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, federal courts “apply ordinary state—law principles that govern the formation of contracts.” First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995). Federal courts sitting in diversity look to the law of the forum state—here, California—when making choice of law determinations. Hoffman v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 546 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). Under California law, the parties' choice of law will govern unless section 187(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws dictates a different result. Id.
Here, the parties agree that the validity of the arbitration agreement is governed by New York law, as specified by the Terms of Use's choice of law provision. But whether the choice of law provision applies depends on whether the parties agreed to be bound by Barnes & Noble's Terms of Use in the first place. As the district court acknowledged in its order, we need not engage in this circular inquiry because both California and New York law dictate the same outcome. Thus, in evaluating the validity of Barnes & Noble's arbitration agreement, we apply New York law, to the extent possible.
For the reasons that follow, we hold that Nguyen did not enter into Barnes & Noble's agreement to arbitrate.
“While new commerce on the Internet has exposed courts to many new situations, it has not fundamentally changed the principles of contract.” Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 403 (2d Cir.2004). One such principle is the requirement that “[m]utual manifestation of assent, whether by written or spoken word or by conduct, is the touchstone of contract.” Specht v. Netscape Commc'ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 29 (2d Cir.2002) (applying California law).
Contracts formed on the Internet come primarily in two flavors: “clickwrap” (or “click-through”) agreements, in which website users are required to click on an “I agree” box after being presented with a list of terms and conditions of use; and “browsewrap” agreements, where a website's terms and conditions of use are generally posted on the website via a hyperlink at the bottom of the screen. SeeRegister.com, 356 F.3d at 428–30. Barnes & Noble's Terms of Use fall in the latter category.
“Unlike a clickwrap agreement, a browsewrap agreement does not require the user to manifest assent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jackson v. Amazon.com, Inc.
...exists, federal courts ‘apply ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts.’ " Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc. , 763 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan , 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995) ). In this ca......
-
In re Zoom Video Commc'ns Inc. Privacy Litig.
...a "reasonably prudent" user would have been "on inquiry notice of the terms of the [TOS]." Id. at 17 (quoting Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc. , 763 F.3d 1171, 1177 (9th Cir. 2014) ). Third, Plaintiffs respond that even if the TOS bound Plaintiffs, the TOS fails to apply to Plaintiffs’ implied......
-
Cap Call, LLC v. Foster (In re Shoot the Moon, LLC)
..., 2016 WL 7374272, at *2, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176103, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2016). See also, e.g., Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc. , 763 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a choice-of-law inquiry is not necessary when both options "dictate the same outcome"); In re Aircras......
-
Berkson v. Gogo LLC
...changed the principles of contract.” Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, 356 F.3d 393, 403 (2d Cir.2004) ; see also, Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir.2014) (same); Treiber & Straub, Inc. v. U.P.S., 474 F.3d 379, 385 (7th Cir.2007) (same). “[G]iven the expansive and open......
-
Skadden Discusses the Growing Complexity of Commercial Rights Issues In NFTs
...35 (2d Cir. 2002). [2] Sgouros v. TransUnion Corp ., 2015 WL 507584, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 5, 2015). [3] Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc ., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014). [4] Specht at 19. [5] Hines v. Overstock.com Inc ., 380 Fed. Appx. 22, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 11265 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2010). [6]......
-
Purchasing Flowers Ends In Reforming Browsewrap Agreements
...under California law. See generally Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 30 (2d Cir. 2002); Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 2014). The Specht court required that the website make "a reasonably prudent offeree in plaintiffs' position" aware of the ......
-
Placement Of Checkbox Can Make Or Break A Clickwrap Agreement
...the structure and design of Guthy-Renker's website at the time each respective purchase was made. See Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that often website design can dictate the validity of an online contract) Therefore, a detailed explanation of the......
-
Ninth Circuit Refuses To Enforce Arbitration Clause Contained In 'Browsewrap'Agreement
...v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) In response to an advertisement announcing a "fire sale," plaintiff visited Barnes & Noble's website and purchased two "Touchpads" (competitor to Apple's iPad) at a discounted rate, and received an email confirming the transactio......
-
Private Antitrust Suits
...with [a] . . . transaction.’”). 624. Specht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 29-30 (2d Cir. 2002); Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1178-1179 (9th Cir. 2014). 625. See, e.g., Hancock, 701 F.3d at 1257 (“But basic contract law principles in Florida and Oklahoma indicate ......
-
Table of Cases
...F. Supp. 445 (E.D. Pa. 1961), 1649 Nghiem v. NEC Elec., Inc., 25 F.3d 1437, 1441-42 (9th Cir. 1994), 1358 Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014), 888 NHL Players’ Ass’n v. Plymouth Whalers Hockey Club, 325 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2003), 123, 124, 609, 633, 849 NHL v. Metrop......
-
Steps and Leaps
...(last updated Feb. 14, 2019). 25. Supercell Fan Content Policy , supra note 24. 26. Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1177 (9th Cir. 2014) (“But where . . . there is no evidence that the user had actual knowledge of the agreement, the validity of the browsewrap agreement turns o......
-
Far from the Madding Crowd: Crowdfunding a Small Business Reorganization
...was only noticeable after a "multi-step process" of clicking through non-obvious links); see generally Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2014) ("Indeed, courts have consistently enforced browsewrap agreements where the user had actual notice of the agreement"). 10......