• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Arbitration Process Issues / SEVENTH CIRCUIT HOLDS NO AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH RESPECT TO ON-LINE CONTRACT

SEVENTH CIRCUIT HOLDS NO AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH RESPECT TO ON-LINE CONTRACT

April 28, 2016 by Carlton Fields

This case arises from an appeal from an Illinois federal district court, which ruled that TransUnion, a credit reporting agency, did not give a putative class of its website users proper notice of an arbitration agreement, and thus no contract was formed.

By way of background, lead plaintiff Sgouros filed suit in Illinois federal court, alleging that he had paid nearly $40 for a credit report, including a numbered score, through TransUnion’s website, which was “materially misleading” and “essentially worthless” because TransUnion did not base the score on the same information on which lenders rely. TransUnion’s terms of use on its website were provided for in a Service Agreement, which contained an arbitration clause and class action waiver. Thus, TransUnion moved to compel arbitration, arguing that Sgouros’ claim is subject to arbitration and that he can only bring his claim as an individual, not as part of a class. The Illinois district court ruled that the parties did not form a binding contract, including the agreement to arbitrate.

In its decision, the Seventh Circuit analyzed TransUnion’s website and the user experience. It noted that the user was required to take steps through a scroll-through menu, with a button to click through to authorize TransUnion to request the user’s financial information. However, the court noted that the website did not call the user’s attention to the Service Agreement, which contained the arbitration clause “buried at page 8”, nor did the scroll-through buttons advise the user of the agreement or that he or she was agreeing to its terms. Thus, the court noted that there was no notice to the TransUnion customers that they were agreeing to the terms of the Service Agreement, and that it was not enough that the website provided a scroll-through menu and a hyperlinked copy of the agreement. Rather, according to the court, TransUnion was required to notify its customers that the purchase was subject to the terms of the agreement.

Thus, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court order, holding that no agreement that contained an arbitration clause was formed, and it thus affirmed the denial of TransUnion’s motion to compel arbitration. Sgouros v. TransUnion Corp., No. 15-1371 (7th Cir. Mar. 25, 2016).

This post written by Jeanne Kohler.
See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.