Plaintiffs Can’t ‘Escape’ Arbitration Pact to Which They ‘Indisputably Agreed’: SiriusXM

Plaintiffs Ayana Stevenson, David Ambrose and Lisa Ramirez admit they accepted and agreed to the SiriusXM customer agreement, and they didn’t opt out of the arbitration agreement contained within it, said SiriusXM’s reply Friday (docket 3:23-cv-02367) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco in support of its July 24 motion to compel the plaintiffs’ claims to arbitration (see 2307250031). SiriusXM is alleged to have falsely advertised its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges. The plaintiffs also admit their claims fall within the scope of the arbitration clause, said SiriusXM’s reply. They “now nonetheless seek to escape the arbitration agreement to which they indisputably agreed by challenging two of its provisions as invalid,” it said: “Those efforts fail.” The plaintiffs’ claim the arbitration agreement unlawfully prohibits those who opt out of arbitration from seeking class action relief in court, but “this is pure distraction,” said the reply. The plaintiffs didn’t opt out of arbitration and can’t invalidate the customer agreement “because of how it might affect others,” it said. The plaintiffs then argue the customer agreement impermissibly prohibits them from seeking public injunctive relief in either court or arbitration, it said. But the parties agreed an arbitrator would decide that question, and the plaintiffs “are mistaken about it anyway,” it said. Under binding 9th Circuit precedent, they may request public injunctive relief in arbitration without running afoul of the customer agreement’s restrictions, it said. In any event, the plaintiffs “lack standing to pursue public injunctive relief, and all of their claims other than their request for such relief must be sent to arbitration no matter what the court decides about that unusual remedy,” it said. The court should grant SiriusXM’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in this court, it said.