Court Grants AT&T’s Motion to Compel Data Breach Claims to Arbitration

U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Rodriguez for Western North Carolina in Statesville granted AT&T’s May 12 motion to compel plaintiff Timothy Trimble’s claims to arbitration (see 2305150052), said her signed order Thursday (docket 5:23-cv-00038). Trimble’s March 16 class action alleges AT&T “completely and utterly failed” to protect sensitive consumer data when it suffered a “massive data breach” in January, compromising the personal information of about 9 million U.S. customers. Based on the “plain language” of AT&T’s customer service agreements and Trimble’s actions “through his signature and continued use” of AT&T’s services, the judge said Trimble and AT&T “formed a valid contract," which included an arbitration agreement in which Trimble agreed to arbitrate certain disputes and claims with AT&T, said her order. Trimble urges the court not to enforce the arbitration agreement on the grounds of “procedural and substantive unconscionability,” it said. But under North Carolina law, unconscionability is an affirmative defense, “in which case it places the burden on the party arguing unconscionability to show that the agreement is invalid,” it said. Trimble electronically signed and accepted the AT&T customer agreement, “which specifically acknowledged” the arbitration provision to which he agreed, it said. Trimble received notices by email and on billing statements of the arbitration provision, it said. He now submits that the arbitration agreement was a “contract of adhesion” and that the terms are “oppressive and unfair,” it said. The court “finds these arguments unpersuasive,” it said. Trimble further argues the arbitration agreement “is overly broad and opens consumers up to litigation involving claims they could not have reasonably foreseen at the time of formation,” it said. But the arbitration agreement isn’t so “oppressive or one-sided” for the court to find it unconscionable, said the order. Simply because an arbitration provision is broad doesn’t mean it’s unconscionable, it said.