Offering Memorandum

"Internet Rewards Program Class Action Survives Initial Motion to Dismiss -- In re Easysaver Rewards

[Post by Venkat]

In re: Easysaver Rewards Litigation (S.D. Cal.) (Aug. 13, 2010)

Plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit against Provide-Commerce (which operated Pro.Flowers.com). The lawsuit alleged that effecting transactions on the Proflowers website resulted in plaintiffs being unwittingly enrolled in a rewards program and being charged credit card fees. The court denied the motion to dismiss brought by defendants.

Background: Provide operated ProFlowers.com. At the time of completion of transactions on ProFlowers, consumers were offered a chance to enroll in a "rewards program" which was operated for Provide by Encore Marketing. Plaintiffs alleged that they were "unwittingly" enrolled in the program:

Plaintiffs allege that Provide leads customers to believe they will receive a complimentary $15.00 gift code to use on their next flower order as a thank you gift. After Plaintiffs completed the purchase of flowers on Provide's website by providing their personal and payment information, 'a window popped up that thanked Plaintiffs and Class Members for their order and offered a gift code for $15.00 off their next purchase at ProFlowers. The window also contained a link for Plaintiffs and Class Members to click on to claim the gift code.' Plaintiffs contend the pop-up window is part of an intentionally misleading and deceptive scheme, jointly orchestrated by Provide and EMI.

The named plaintiffs all testified to slightly different experiences. Some closed the pop-up window and did not provide any personal information, others responded to the pop-up by clicking on "I accept" and entering their personal information. Ultimately, plaintiffs were unable to have the charges relating to the EasySaver program reversed, and brought a variety of claims against both Provide and Encore.

Discussion:

Breach of Contract Claims:

Provide first argued that the privacy policy is not "an actionable contract" but was instead a "general statement . . . of policy." The court doesn't treat this as a colorable argument, citing to the alleged user experience and plaintiffs' reliance on the privacy policy and terms of use, which popped up every step of the way. (But see In re JetBlue, discussed in Professor Goldman's post here: "When Does a Privacy Policy Breach Support a Breach of Contract Claim? In re JetBlue.")

Provide also argued that the applicable privacy policy allowed it to transfer information to third parties, but the court holds that there is a disputed factual issue as to whether Provide agreed to only transfer the information with consumers' "informed consent or authorization," and would not share the information "beyond that which was necessary to complete the flower order."

Finally, Provide argued that the "EasySaver Rewards Policy" was not supported by an exchange of consideration, since it only came up after the flower transaction was complete. The court rejects this argument as well, finding that the rewards program was "part and parcel of the underlying flower purchase."

Provide also tried to disclaim liability for Encore's actions by arguing that it was not responsible for anything Encore did. The court cites to language in the description of the rewards program that indicates the program was jointly operated (the program was described as "our" program and Encore was described as Provide's "partner").

A separate sub-class of plaintiffs brought contract claims against Encore. These plaintiffs argued that they did not "knowingly" consent to the rewards program, and even if they did, Encore breached the terms of the program by not providing the stated benefits. Encore argued that these plaintiffs could not have it both ways - either they enrolled in the program (in which case plaintiffs accepted the terms were clearly stated) or they didn't. The court finds that plaintiffs could plead in the alternative that they did not enter into an agreement, and even if they did, Encore breached the terms of the agreement.

Fraud Claims: Provide raised a variety of arguments against plaintiffs' fraud claims (failure to plead fraud with particularity, failure to allege causation). The court rejects these arguments, holding that whether plaintiffs read the privacy policy or had adequate notice is not something that was amenable to resolution at the motion to dismiss stage.

Conversion: Plaintiffs argued that defendants converted plaintiffs' "private payment information." With respect to plaintiffs' conversation claim, the court notes the historical trend away from limiting conversation claims to tangible property (citing to Kremen v. Cohen, among other cases). The court analogizes conversion of plaintiff's "Private Payment Information" to conversion of bank account information, and finds that plaintiffs adequately state a claim based on conversion of private payment information.

EFTA: The Electronic Funds Transfer Act prohibits, among other things, unauthorized billing. Provide argued that it was Encore and not Provide who engaged in the unauthorized billing. The court agrees and grants Provide's motion to dismiss as to the EFTA claim, finding that there is no liability under the statute for aiding and abetting an EFTA violation. With respect to Encore, the court denies the motion to dismiss. Among other things, the court rejects Encore's argument that the plaintiffs agreed to the membership charges by "entering [their] email address[es] and zip code[s] and clicking the green acceptance button."

___

Defendants will have another opportunity to show that plaintiffs' claims are without merit, but I think the court's resolution at the pleading stage is interesting. A more robust disclaimer and a non-leaky acknowledgment would have no doubt been useful here. (See professor Goldman's post on Scherillo v. Dun and Bradstreet for some good pointers.)

The case also illustrates the importance of the transaction flow and process (the user experience). Often lawyers provide advice, but implementation is left to the business or marketing folks. This case illustrates that in addition to the language of the terms, courts will look to the transaction process to poke holes in the contract formation argument.

Data breach claims alleging a breach of the applicable privacy policy have met with little success. (See, e.g., Ruiz v. Gap, discussed in this post: "9th Circuit Affirms Rejection of Data Breach Claims Against Gap.") Where there is out of pocket loss that is a result of a violation of the privacy policy, plaintiffs have a much easier time bringing claims for violation of the privacy policy. In this case, defendants didn't even raise the argument that plaintiffs had not suffered out of pocket loss or lacked standing - it was a nonstarter.

It was also interesting that defendants tried to rely (and have judicial notice taken of) the online terms, but the court refused to do so, in light of the changing content of the webpages. When defendants pushed this argument, the court predictably trotted out the "[i]nformation from the internet does not necessarily bear an indicia of reliability" argument."

It’s not often that we at Alerding Castor Hewitt, LLP run into issues regarding the payment of commissions for our business law, SaaS law, and Indiana technology clients.  When the subject does arise, however, it usually occurs when an employee separates from employment and makes a wage claim for unpaid commissions.  The debate about whether the commissions are wages centers on whether the employee was entitled to the commission at the time of sale OR when the client pays for the product, service, etc.  Employers often want to argue that the latter applies, and for two obvious reasons:  (1) they want to avoid the penalties for unpaid wages, and (2) it can be economically difficult if not impossible to pay a commission if you don’t have the funds available because you are waiting on the client(s) to pay.

A recent decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals this week illustrates the issue.  On Wednesday, the Court issued its for-publication decision in Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc. v. Land, No. 48A02-0911-CV-1099.  The facts are fairly straight forward. Mr. Land sold crop insurance for Wells Fargo.  After Mr. Land separated from Well Fargo to start his own business, Wells Fargo sued Mr. Land for violating a covenant not to compete.  Mr. Land counterclaimed for unpaid commissions.  Wells Fargo argued that the unpaid commissions were not earned until after a farmer paid the insurance premium and relied on a written plan or policy to support its position.  In contrast, Mr. Land presented evidence – including deposition testimony from a manager – that he was never advised of this policy and was unaware that the policy existed.  Mr. Land won at the trial level and on appeal.

In addressing the issue on appeal, the Court of Appeals noted the general rule that a party is entitled to commissions right away on business that he/she has secured regardless of when payment is received by the employer.  The Court also noted that this general rule can be altered by written agreement or conduct of the parties.  Ultimately, the Court concluded that Wells Fargo’s policy did not alter the general rule because Mr. Land was neither aware of nor apprised of the policy on commissions.

Your friendly Indianapolis attorney at Alerding Castor Hewitt LLP here with an issue for those of you who, from time to time, might find yourselves embroiled in collections litigation over business law, SaaS law, or technology law matters.  How often have you seen a debtor issue a check for payment and include on the memo line words to the effect of “as full satisfaction of claim,” “final payment in full of debt,” or some similar words despite the fact that the debtor owes you more than the face amount of the check?  How many of you would go ahead and cash the check, or worse yet not even notice the memo line because you routinely cash every check you receive or utilize an automated system to process checks?

The questions I pose are more than mere hypotheticals.  The savvy debtor, or more likely the debtor relying on the advice of savvy counsel, realizes that by including such words on the memo line of a check he or she could create a potential issue regarding an accord and satisfaction of the debt he or she owes to you if you have to file suit to collect on the debt.  If nothing else, the debtor knows that you will either have to negotiate with them or spend money litigating the issue.  Either way, when it’s all said and done, you will likely lose money collecting on the debt.

The applicable Indiana statute here is Indiana Code § 26-1-3.1-311.  I encourage you to read the provision for yourself; however, in a nutshell, it gives the debtor who utilizes the memo line a possible “out” on the debt.  For instance, the debt can be considered as discharged if you knew that the check was tendered in full satisfaction of the debt and either (a) before tender of the check did not send a conspicuous statement to the debtor that communications regarding disputed debts or instruments tendered as full satisfaction must be sent to a designated person, office or place, or (b) did not tender repayment to the debtor within 90 days.  Those of you who take the time to read the statute might also notice that, technically speaking, the debtor is required to prove that he or she tendered the payment in good faith as full satisfaction and prove that the amount “was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute.”  In practice, however, it has been our experience at ACH that courts either do not enforce the technical requirements or, more often, are reluctant to resolve them because they see the issue as a factual dispute (a case of “he/she says v. what you say”) that requires a trial to resolve.          

So what should you do when faced with this scenario?  The best solution harkens back to the old saw about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure:  we at ACH recommend that you implement some process or system to monitor payment checks and, if you find that a debtor is trying to slip by on what they owe you by utilizing the memo line as I’ve described, do NOT cash the check.  Instead, notify the debtor immediately of the dispute and non-conforming payment.  While the risk is that you might lose out on a payment from a debtor who intends to stop paying you anyway, the benefit of such a practice is that you do not give the debtor a potential defense argument that results in greater collection costs and could result in you being unable to collect on the full debt owed to you. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 23, 2010
Contact: Lainey Scheetz
317.403.9012
lscheetz@alerdingcastor.com

ALERDING CASTOR HEWITT, LLP CLIENT NAMED 10TH FASTEST GROWING PRIVATE COMPANY IN INDIANA FOR THIRD TIME

Indianapolis, IN – Iasta, the leading provider of eSourcing software and solutions, was titled as the 10th Fastest Growing Private Company in Indiana for 2010 by the Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ).  A third time honoree, Iasta boosted its three-year growth rate at 134 percent.

The report profiled Iasta’s founding’s, current offerings and future outlook.

The IBJ ranks companies by their revenue growth over the last three consecutive years, which must exceed $1 million annually.  In 2009, Iasta ranked 17th and in 2008 they ranked 14th.  The award is based on revenue growth of the last three consecutive years.  Iasta has thrived in a market where many others have been forced to make budget cuts and layoffs.  “We’ve established a lot of credibility and there’s a lot of growth yet to be had,” said Bush.

Iasta experienced very rapid growth in its younger years at 80 to 90 percent a year.  These days, the company still grows at 30 to 40 percent annually.  Bush attributes the success of Iasta to flexibility and high quality in both software and services.

Dave Castor has represented Iasta as general counsel since 2002. 

Firm at a Glance:

At Alerding Castor Hewitt, LLP, the attorneys focus on business law, litigation and technology law services.  The firm has unique experience in niche markets such as software and technology licensing, e-commerce and Internet law and international business law. 

For additional information, please visit www.alerdingcastor.com.

Given the firm's technology legal counsel and software litigation practice, it only makes sense that the firm would support the prestigious 2010 Techpoint MIRA Awards Gala taking place on Saturday, May 15th, 2010.  It makes for a positive synergy between the two groups.

The TechPoint Mira Awards, presented by BKD, is the premier technology awards program in the state of Indiana.  Since the turn of the century, TechPoint has honored Indiana businesses, schools and universities, and individuals for their contributions to the state’s technology-related economy. TechPoint’s prestigious Mira Awards program recognizes leaders and innovators in 11 different business categories.

“As a firm that offers technology legal counsel, we appreciate the opportunity to support TechPoint in an effort to further their mission,” says David Castor, partner at Alerding Castor Hewitt, LLP.  “We enjoy supporting our clients as much as we can.” 

Firm at a Glance:
Practice Areas: business counsel, licensing and technology, litigation
Headquarters: 47 S. Pennsylvania St., Suite 700
Founded: April 2007
Partners: Michael Alerding, David Castor, Brian Hewitt
Employees: 17, nine of them attorneys
Clients: 300, including Compendium Blogware, ExactTarget, Iasta, First Merchants Bank, Indiana Bank and Trust, MainSource Bank