Samsung Presses Its Case to Compel Z Fold3 Fraud Claims to Arbitration

Plaintiff Antonio Lewis’ opposition to Samsung's motion to compel his fraud claims to arbitration “concedes the relevant facts and law applicable to contract formation,” said Samsung’s reply Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-10882) in support of the motion. Lewis’ putative class action alleges Samsung duped consumers into believing its Galaxy Z Fold3 foldable smartphone is more durable than it really is (see 2305020029).

Lewis’ opposition ignores precedent “applying the same facts and law to enforce virtually identical” arbitration agreements in other courts, said Samsung’s reply. Lewis doesn’t contest that contract formation “requires no more than inquiry notice of the contract terms and a mutual manifestation of assent,” it said. Nor does he dispute he affirmatively agreed to the arbitration agreement when activating his device and didn’t “opt out thereafter,” it said.

Lewis must therefore arbitrate his claims, said Samsung's reply. He can’t “avoid the outcome by ignoring on-point precedents, attacking strawmen” or labeling the arbitration agreement “unconscionable” without “factual or legal support,” it said. The court “should compel arbitration and dismiss the matter,” it said.

The opposition “offers no evidence at all” that Lewis shouldn’t be held accountable for the arbitration provisions he agreed to, said the reply. “He instead resorts to unsworn statements” that he never viewed the arbitration agreement and “vague suggestions” that some, but not all, of the arbitration notices he received “were insufficient to place him on inquiry,” it said. Even if his unsworn statements carried evidentiary weight, and they don’t, Lewis “concedes that actual notice is not required,” it said.

As for “inquiry notice,” Lewis “received clear and conspicuous notice” of the arbitration agreement “everywhere a reasonable consumer could be expected to look,” said the reply. There was a notice on the device’s box, in a short pamphlet inside the box, during the device’s “clickwrap” set-up process, on the device itself and on Samsung’s website, it said. These notices “stated in plain language” that setting up, using and retaining the device, without opting out of the arbitration agreement, “constituted acceptance,” it said. Lewis doesn’t dispute “he engaged in all such conduct,” it said.

Though Samsung “walked painstakingly” through the Z Fold3’s unboxing process and the repeated arbitration notices provided throughout in its motion to compel, Lewis “ignored that process,” said the reply. He failed to address, and thus conceded the “sufficiency” of the on-the-box arbitration notice, “while conflating and mischaracterizing the other forms of notice,” it said. He likewise failed to address the vast majority of Samsung’s “points and authorities,” including the “numerous cases” enforcing arbitration agreements related to Samsung products, it said.