Match Failed to Place Users on Notice of Terms, Says Plaintiff Opposing Arbitration

Match Group “failed to place users on reasonable or inquiry notice of the terms of its online agreements,” and therefore its sign-in wrap agreement “is insufficient to bind” Sylvia Ciapinska to arbitration, said the plaintiff Wednesday in a memorandum of law (docket 2:23-cv-23115) opposing Match’s motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas. Ciapinska sued Tinder and parent company Match after another Tinder user allegedly misappropriated her likeness (see 2312180037). She alleges Match falsely advertised Tinder’s photo verification process, leading her and class members to believe that such misappropriation wouldn’t be possible, it said. In its December motion to compel (see 2312220030), Match said Ciapinska agreed to arbitrate her claims against Match, that any disputes concerning arbitrability of claims must be submitted to an arbitrator for resolution, and “to litigate any purportedly non-arbitrable claims against Match in Dallas County, Texas.” In the alternative to arbitration, Match seeks a transfer of the case to the U.S. District Court for Northern Texas. Match seeks to deprive its users “of their time-honored and constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial through the use of a 'Sign-in Wrap' agreement, even though it repeatedly mischaracterizes the purported 'agreement' as a 'clickwrap'” in its motion to compel, said the memorandum. Through its design and layout, Match failed to put users on notice of the terms of its online agreements, it said. Whether Ciapinska’s claims are arbitrable is for the court, not an arbitrator, to decide, said the memorandum. Should the court find that Match’s arbitration provision is enforceable, which Ciapinska believes it is not, its claims don’t fall within the scope of the language of that provision “and therefore should not be compelled to arbitration,” it said. And should the court find that Ciapinska agreed to Match’s terms of use, “which she did not,” the court should refuse to enforce the forum-selection clause, the memorandum said.