Cooper v. Slice Technologies, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
2017 WL 4071373 (2017)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
UnrollMe, Inc. (UnrollMe) (defendant) provided a free email-management service that targeted users’ junk emails. Slice Technologies, Inc. (Slice) (defendant) bought UnrollMe and began selling access to users’ data to third parties. When registering, users accepted UnrollMe’s terms of use, which included a New York choice-of-law clause and a forum-selection clause choosing New York state or federal courts. After learning of the data selling, many UnrollMe users (the users) (plaintiffs) filed a class-action against UnrollMe and Slice. The classes included a national class, which brought federal claims against UnrollMe and Slice, as well as a California subclass that asserted claims for violations of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act. UnrollMe and Slice filed a motion to transfer the suit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) based on the forum-selection clause in UnrollMe’s terms of use. The users opposed the motion, arguing that a New York court would apply New York privacy law, violating California public policy because New York privacy law was similar to but less robust than California privacy law. The users also argued that the forum-selection clause should be unenforceable because it was part of an adhesion contract, and transferring the case to New York would violate the public interest.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Beeler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.