On Friday in the Central District of California, defendant home security company Ring filed a motion to compel individual arbitration for the plaintiffs in a case alleging that Ring is liable for the hacking of their Ring accounts and devices by bad actors and additionally for allegedly sharing their personal identifying information with third parties without consent.
Ring contended that the plaintiffs purchased a Ring product, created an account and/or used the company’s services; therefore the users have agreed to the Terms of Service which mandate arbitration via their purchase, account registration, and use of Ring products. Moreover, Ring states that “fifteen Signatory Plaintiffs’ continued use of Ring products constitutes agreement to the Terms.” Meanwhile, the non-signatory plaintiffs must arbitrate because either: “their guardians, the Signatory Plaintiffs agreed on their behalf to arbitrate claims against Ring,” “their preexisting intimate family relationship with a Signatory plaintiff who agreed to the Terms,” and they “are bound by Ring’s Terms under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.”
As a result, Ring averred that each plaintiff “must arbitrate his or her claims pursuant to a valid, enforceable agreement to arbitrate (all disputes arising out of/related to Ring’s products or services) contained in Ring’s Terms of Service, to which each plaintiff agreed or is bound under contract and agency principles or the doctrine of equitable estoppel.” Additionally, Ring noted that the arbitration provision requires individual arbitration and “clearly and unmistakably delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.” As a result, Ring asserted that each plaintiff, whether signatory or non-signatory, is required to engage in individual arbitration. Ring adds that the plaintiffs’ arbitration agreement “encompasses their claims.”
Ring is seeking for the court to stay the case pending arbitration and order all of the plaintiffs to proceed in individual arbitration. Ring is represented by Hueston Hennigan LLP.