Private Placement 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."

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.

        War at its best is barbarism.

Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.

                                    --William Tecumseh Sherman

Though he said these words nearly a century and a half ago, General Sherman’s comments apply equally well to litigation, including the world of business law, technology law, SaaS law, and probate law.  Litigation is a serious business, not something to be undertaken lightly.  And it is often expensive – regardless of who has so-called “right” on their side because, just as in warfare, both sides often express to being on the “right” side.

Just like warfare, there is an element of risk and chance in litigation.  Further, litigation can entail subterfuge and trying to pscyh out the opposing party.  Sometimes you can achieve victory by making your opponent think that Point A is your objective so that when he or she marshals all of their forces in defense around that position, you pop up over at Point B.  General Sherman employed this same tactic in his march to the sea, and it can be just as effective in litigation.

You might wonder why litigation seems to be much ado about nothing at times, why a large amount of energy, time and money is spent sweating over details.  The reason is that the minutiae should not be underestimated.  Those of us who are litigators in business law, technology law, SaaS law, and probate law don’t engage in these skirmishes simply because we want to or love to (though admittedly this might be true for some); we do it because in order to fully represent you our clients we HAVE to do so.  We know that the little details can make or break a case, and we know that those fights over the placement of a comma or definition of a word, though long and tedious, can help stave off those future battles or wars – or at least give you the advantage of the high ground from which to pounce on your opponent later on.

Just like warfare, fairness has nothing to do with it.  If you want to be involved in a lawsuit, you have to be willing to go the distance, and no matter how tiring you have to keep your eye on your objective.  It’s a marathon, not a sprint, and you have to be ready for the long haul.  If litigation were easy, you wouldn’t be in a lawsuit in the first place; you could sort out your differences over a couple of beers.  But sadly that’s often not the case.  It takes money, time, and even frustration to flesh out a resolution.  Someone, and probably both sides, will probably bleed before it is over.

At Alerding Castor Hewitt LLP, we are ready and willing to go that distance with you, but the process works best if you are prepared to make that journey and are prepared for the cost and risk.  If you stumble during a battle, get back up and remember that it’s warfare and that we will be there for you in those trenches.