Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Daniel RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM **
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. (collectively, “Samsung”), appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to compel arbitration of Daniel Ramirez’s claims stemming from severe burns allegedly caused by his Samsung phone. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and because the factual findings are undisputed, we review de novo the district court’s ruling. Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc., 755 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
Under California law, silence or inaction generally does not constitute acceptance of a contract. See Norcia v. Samsung Telecomms. Am., LLC, 845 F.3d 1279, 1287 (9th Cir. 2017). An offeree may demonstrate acceptance through conduct, but not where, as here, the contractual provisions are “inconspicuous” and “contained in a document whose contractual nature is not obvious.” Windsor Mills, Inc. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 25 Cal. App. 3d 987, 993, 101 Cal.Rptr. 347 (1972). We conclude that the inaptly titled booklet containing the terms and conditions and the smartphone packaging’s vague reference to terms and conditions are insufficient to put a reasonable consumer (or a reasonably prudent smartphone user) on notice of the arbitration provision that Samsung seeks to enforce. See Norcia, 845 F.3d at 1284–86.
Norcia also forecloses Samsung’s arguments that California courts have adopted the “in-the box” theory of assent and that the “in-the-box” theory would apply in these circumstances. Id. at 1287–90 (citing Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147, 1148 (7th Cir. 1997)). Two non-precedential decisions from California’s intermediate court of appeals, both of which address Hill only in passing, do not undermine this conclusion. See Schuldner v. ITC Fin. Licenses, Inc., No. A150522, 2018 WL 416839, at *7 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2018) (unpublished); Chau v. Pre-Paid Legal Servs., Inc., No. B270277, 2017 WL 604721, at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2017) (unpublished).
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-16094
Decided: September 17, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)