National Federation of the Blind v. Container Store, Inc.

904 F.3d 70 (2018)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

National Federation of the Blind v. Container Store, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
904 F.3d 70 (2018)

Facts

The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) (plaintiff) brought a class-action lawsuit in federal district court against the Container Store, Inc. (the store) (defendant) on behalf of blind customers who shopped in-store (the in-store class members) and were signed up for the store’s loyalty program and a blind customer who signed up for the loyalty program online at home, alleging numerous violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The terms and conditions of the program included a class-action waiver and an agreement to arbitrate, which the store had a unilateral right to modify at any time. The in-store class members alleged that they were not given notice, constructive or otherwise, of these terms when they enrolled because of the store’s exclusive use of visual touchscreen interfaces and lack of tactile keypads on its point-of-sale devices, which meant those customers had to verbally disclose their enrollment information to store clerks, who did not inform in-store class members of the program’s terms and conditions when the clerks enrolled them. The online customer did dispute that she clicked accepting the terms and conditions, and she contended that there was a lack of consideration. The store sought to enforce the arbitration and class-action-waiver provisions against both sets of plaintiffs. The store produced no evidence that the store clerks informed the in-store class members of the terms and conditions of the loyalty program when they were signed up. Applying Texas contract law, the district court denied the store’s motion as to the in-store customers because it found they were never given notice of the program’s terms and conditions and as to the online customer because the agreement was illusory as to all plaintiffs. The store appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Thompson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership