Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—Ohio App.: Amazon, Intuit consumer must arbitrate deceptive practices claim, (Oct 26, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

A consumer that purchased Amazon gift cards through Intuit Payments, Inc.’s “Turbo Tax Bonus Refund Program” was correctly ordered to arbitrate his Ohio deceptive trade practices claim against Amazon and Intuit. The Ohio Court of Appeals in Lucas County affirmed a trial court’s judgment granting Amazon’s and Intuit’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay, rejecting the consumer’s lack of acceptance, public policy, unconscionability, lack of consideration, and outside the scope of agreement arguments (Ranazzi v. Amazon.com, Inc., October 23, 2015, Pietrykowski, M.).

The consumer purchased Intuit’s 2013 Turbo Tax Deluxe program and participated in the Turbo Tax Bonus Refund Program allowing him to convert part of his income tax refund to Amazon eGift Cards, with a 10 percent bonus provided by Intuit. After learning that he could not use Intuit-sponsored Amazon eGift Cards to purchase other Amazon gift cards, and unable to rescind the offer, the consumer filed suit alleging violations of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The trial court granted Amazon’s and Intuit’s motion to stay pending arbitration.

On appeal, the consumer alleged that the trial court erred in granting the motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay proceedings because: (1) the consumer might never have agreed to the arbitration provisions; (2) the provisions violated public policy; (3) the provisions were unconscionable; (4) no consideration existed for the execution of the arbitration provisions; and (5) the claims were outside the scope of the provisions.

The court rejected all five purported assignments of error, first concluding that by clicking “I agree” on Intuit’s license agreement and by registering for an Amazon account and placing orders, the consumer accepted the terms of the companies’ arbitration provisions. Second, the contract terms concerning the bonus gift card program were deemed central to the present dispute and the action could not be maintained without reference to the “contract or relationship at issue.” Consequently, the consumer’s claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The lack of consideration argument was also rejected because the consumer had the option of not continuing with the Turbo Tax installation process when he was required to click “I Agree” to the license agreement, and he had the option of not creating an Amazon account or of terminating his account.

The unconscionability arguments also failed. In particular, the court noted that the consumer was an attorney who was capable of interpreting contract language, and the arbitration clauses lacked onerous monetary burdens, demonstrating a lack of substantive unconscionability. Further, a showing of a one-sided contract, alone, was not enough to demonstrate procedural unconscionability. Finally, the consumer’s public policy argument failed because a limitation of a consumer’s legal remedies, including class actions, was not unconscionable unless it violated a consumer’s statutory rights, which did not occur in the instant action.

The case number is L-14-1217.

Attorneys: Andrew K. Ranazzi, pro se. Christine E. Mayle (Thacker Martinsek LPA) for Amazon.com, Inc.

Companies: Amazon.com, Inc.; Intuit Payments, Inc.

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices OhioNews