ST. LOUIS (Legal Newsline) – Verizon will have to face accusations in open court that one of its employees took a customer’s phone and emailed her nude photos to himself when she was buying a new phone.
The Missouri Court of Appeals on June 29 affirmed a St. Louis County ruling that Verizon’s arbitration agreement doesn’t apply to the complaint of Breanna Rose, who was allegedly victimized by an employee when she was trading in her old iPhone.
The trial court found the terms of Verizon’s customer agreement were procedurally and substantively unconscionable and that a customer would not expect all disputes – especially like Rose’s – to be subject to arbitration.
“A reasonable party signing a sales receipt might understandably expect the writing to address common, ordinary service provider disputes, such as billing matters, service quality or product and warranty issues,” Judge Thom Clark wrote.
“Terms in the Customer Agreement make repeated reference to billing or services interruption disputes, and limit customers’ rights with respect to those topics.
“This reinforces the likelihood that a reasonable party signing a sales receipt in a retail setting would not anticipate that they were altering their legal position on issues affecting personal matters and privacy in the manner alleged here.”
Rose said the employee took her phone to the back of the store under the guise of researching a value for the trade-in. Four months later, she noticed an email from her account linked to her phone to an address associated with the employee that was sent when she was at the store.
The email included photographs and a video displaying nude and partially nude images of Rose and one of her nursing an infant, she says. She sued the employee and Verizon, which responded with a motion to compel arbitration.
Verizon pointed to store receipt she’d signed during another visit to the store that references “SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BY ARBITRATION INSTEAD OF JURY TRIALS” and refers to a customer agreement on the company’s site.
“The Customer Agreement in this matter is an adhesion contract,” Clark wrote. “Plaintiff is an individual customer and Verizon is a sophisticated corporation. Signed by Plaintiff, the 2015 store receiptloosely refers to the settlement of disputes by arbitration, but does not contain the contract terms.
“In particular, the store receipt does not contain language regarding which disputes would be subject to arbitration, including language Verizon relies on regarding disputes with its employees.
“Instead, the store receipt language simply refers Plaintiff to the online Customer Agreement that is only accessible on the Verizon website and outside the receipt’s boundaries.”
The decision also noted the online customer agreement is 10 pages and single-spaced. Almost three pages of all caps arbitration language “screams of ‘take this or nothing,’ effectively nullifying any meaningful negotiation opportunity,” Clark wrote.