Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dylan Dawson sued Target and its Shipt subsidiary over a California shopper-benefits fee. Target asked the Northern District of California to compel arbitration, contending that Dawson accepted an arbitration agreement while using Target’s mobile app.
The parties supplied different screenshots of the checkout experience. Target presented what it said users saw at the relevant time, while Dawson offered a screen from his iPhone. Dawson’s image displayed a different fee amount and label than the purchase alleged in his complaint, so it could not itself show the screen for that purchase. Target also produced reply-stage evidence that Dawson later signed into his account, but the district judge had expressly warned the moving party not to hold new evidence for its reply and declined to consider it.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit vacated the order denying arbitration and returned the case for factual findings. Courts generally use the summary-judgment framework when deciding whether an arbitration agreement was formed. If material facts about assent remain genuinely disputed, the Federal Arbitration Act requires a prompt trial on contract formation before the court finally rules on arbitration.
Two disputes remained unresolved: whether Dawson passed through Target’s sign-in page while the arbitration terms were in effect, and which checkout screen he saw for the transaction in his complaint. Dawson said he did not recall signing in and might previously have selected an option to remain signed in. Those equivocal statements did not conclusively establish that he never encountered Target’s terms.
The district court acted within its discretion when it refused Target’s new reply evidence because Target bore the initial burden and had been warned to submit its proof with the motion. After resolving the historical facts, the court must evaluate both the transaction’s context and the visual presentation of the terms to determine whether Dawson received adequate notice and assented.
Key Takeaways
- A business seeking arbitration should submit complete authentication, account, and interface evidence with its opening motion, not wait until reply.
- When competing evidence creates a material dispute about the screen a user encountered, the court must resolve formation facts before compelling or denying arbitration.
- A user’s inability to remember a sign-in event may create uncertainty but does not necessarily prove the event never occurred.
- Online assent depends on the whole transaction, including screen design, placement of terms, required actions, and whether the user was already signed in.
- Companies should preserve dated versions of app screens, release records, clickstream data, and the terms linked to each transaction.
Why It Matters
California companies cannot assume a current screenshot proves what a customer saw years earlier. Arbitration enforcement often turns on version-specific evidence connecting the user, the transaction, the interface, and the operative terms. Product and legal teams should design that evidentiary trail when deploying updated checkout flows.
For consumer counsel, discrepancies in fee labels, screen versions, and login behavior can establish the factual dispute needed for a formation trial. The nonprecedential disposition also warns both sides that reply briefs are a risky place to repair an incomplete evidentiary record.