Calif. High Court: Online Businesses Face Same Standard as Brick-and-Mortar Stores Under State Civil Rights Law
The California Supreme Court has revived a lawsuit bankruptcy lawyer Robert White filed against online payment company Square Inc., holding that "visiting a website with intent to use its services is, for purposes of standing, equivalent to presenting oneself for services at a brick-and-mortar store."
August 12, 2019 at 04:50 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The California Supreme Court on Monday breathed new life into a bankruptcy lawyer’s proposed class action claiming Square Inc. violates a state civil rights law by barring bankruptcy professionals from using its online service to process payments.
On Monday, the California Supreme Court held that “visiting a website with intent to use its services is, for purposes of standing, equivalent to presenting oneself for services at a brick-and-mortar store” under the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
“Although mere awareness of a business’s discriminatory policy or practice is not enough for standing under the Act, entering into an agreement with the business is not required,” wrote Justice Goodwin Liu for the court in a unanimous opinion.
The case had drawn considerable amicus interest, with the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys and a coalition of disability and consumer rights groups backing San Francisco bankruptcy lawyer Robert White, and the Internet Association, with counsel from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan name partner Kathleen Sullivan, backing Square.
White sued Square in 2015 claiming that the company’s policy of excluding bankruptcy attorneys from using its payment services defies the California Unruh Act, which protects Californians from discrimination by businesses. White claimed that Square’s user agreement requiring new account holders to assure that they won’t accept payments on behalf of “bankruptcy attorneys or collection agencies engaged in the collection of debt” amounted to “occupational discrimination” against bankruptcy lawyers under the act. The suit, brought on behalf of a nationwide class of bankruptcy lawyers, brings significant potential damages since the the law carries statutory penalties of at least $4,000 per violation.
Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed White’s claims in 2016, finding that he didn’t have standing to sue, since he hadn’t actually attempted to sign up for an account after reviewing Square’s policies. But last year on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the California Supreme Court in White’s case: “Does a plaintiff suffer discriminatory conduct, and thus have statutory standing to bring a claim under the Unruh Act, when the plaintiff visits a business’s website with the intent of using its services, encounters terms and conditions that deny the plaintiff full and equal access to its services, and then departs without entering into an agreement with the service provider?”
On Monday, the California Supreme Court answered “yes” to that question.
Myron Moskovitz of the Moskovitz Appellate Team, who represents White alongside William McGrane of McGrane PC, said Monday that the holding is “broad” and significant, considering that Square and its tech allies were arguing that online businesses should be held to a different standard than brick-and-mortar stores when it comes to Unruh Act claims.
“This case is about standing, ostensibly, but it’s really about immunity,” Moskovitz said. “If someone like Mr. White doesn’t have standing to challenge Square’s discriminatory policy, then Square is effectively immune from Unruh Act claims.”
Moskovitz noted that bankruptcy lawyers were at No. 28 on the list of exclusions in Square’s terms of service, including those accepting payment for pornography and firearms.
“Some of these are lawful occupations,” said Moskovitz, adding that others excluded from the service might follow White in filing suit.
A representative from Square said the company had no comment on the decision. Munger, Tolles & Olson’s Fred Rowley Jr. argued for the company at the California Supreme Court. The company is also represented by counsel at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrozen-Potato Producers Face Profiteering Allegations in Surge of Antitrust Class Actions
3 minute readState Appellate Court Upholds $149M Punitive Damages Award Against Hyatt
4 minute readThe Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute read'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250