Jump to content

Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:
| judge = [[Barbara M. Lynn]]
| judge = [[Barbara M. Lynn]]
| prosecutor =
| prosecutor =
| counsel for plaintiff=
| counsel for plaintiff=
| plaintiff =
| plaintiff =Cathryn Elaine Harris, et al.
| defendant =
| defendant = [[Blockbuster LLC|Blockbuster, Inc.]]
| prior actions =
| prior actions =
| subsequent actions =
| subsequent actions =
Line 21: Line 21:
}}
}}
'''''Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.''''', 622 [[Federal Supplement|F. Supp. 2d]] 396 (N.D. Tex. 2009),<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc. |vol=622 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=396 |pinpoint= |court=[[N.D. Tex.]] |date=2009 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20090416981 |accessdate=2019-02-11 |quote=}}</ref> established precedent in the district that when a contract has a clause that authorizes one party to make changes to the "contract" without notification, that it is illusory and hence the entire "contract" is void.
'''''Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.''''', 622 [[Federal Supplement|F. Supp. 2d]] 396 (N.D. Tex. 2009),<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc. |vol=622 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=396 |pinpoint= |court=[[N.D. Tex.]] |date=2009 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20090416981 |accessdate=2019-02-11 |quote=}}</ref> established precedent in the district that when a contract has a clause that authorizes one party to make changes to the "contract" without notification, that it is illusory and hence the entire "contract" is void.
==Background==
[[Blockbuster LLC|Blockbuster]] operates a service called Blockbuster Online that allows customers to rent movies through the internet and entered a contract with Facebook to disseminate customer's movie choices through social media on [[Facebook]], where Facebook broadcast a customer's movie rental choice to their Facebook friends when a video rental transaction is made. The plaintiffs claim that agreement with Facebook violates the [[Video Privacy Protection Act]], which prohibits video service providers from disclosing [[Personal data|personal identifiable information]] without consent.

Blockbuster attempted to invoke an arbitration provision that customers agreed to in the "Terms and Conditions" when joining Blockbuster Online. The provision waives the right of its users to commence any class action and allowed Blockbuster to reserves the right to modify the "Terms and Conditions" at its sole discretion and at any time. The plaintiffs argued that the arbitration provision was unenforceable because it was illusory and [[unconscionable]]. Blockbuster issued a [[motion to compel]] individual arbitration.




==Judgment==
==Judgment==
On April 15, 2009, the District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that Blockbuster Online's Terms and Conditions were unenforceable because they gave Blockbuster too much discretion in modifying the terms of the agreement. Following the reasoning in a Fifth Circuit case, ''[[Morrison v. Amway Corp.]]'',<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Morrison v. Amway Corp. |vol=517 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=248 |pinpoint= |court=[[5th Cir.]] |date=2008 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/2008765517f3d2481762 |accessdate=2019-02-11 |quote=}}</ref> and consistent with a Ninth Circuit case, ''[[Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America]]''<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Douglas v. U.S. Dist. Court ex rel Talk America |vol=495 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1062 |pinpoint= |court=[[9th Cir.]] |date=2007 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/20071557495f3d106211554 |accessdate=2019-02-11 |quote=}}</ref> the court found that Blockbuster's arbitration provision was illusory and unenforceable, because there was nothing in the Terms and Conditions that would prevent Blockbuster from "unilaterally changing any part of the contract."
On April 15, 2009, the District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied Blockbuster's motion to compel and ruled that Blockbuster Online's Terms and Conditions were unenforceable because they gave Blockbuster too much discretion in modifying the terms of the agreement. Following the reasoning in a Fifth Circuit case, ''[[Morrison v. Amway Corp.]]'',<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Morrison v. Amway Corp. |vol=517 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=248 |pinpoint= |court=[[5th Cir.]] |date=2008 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/2008765517f3d2481762 |accessdate=2019-02-11 |quote=}}</ref> and consistent with a Ninth Circuit case, ''[[Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America]]''<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Douglas v. U.S. Dist. Court ex rel Talk America |vol=495 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1062 |pinpoint= |court=[[9th Cir.]] |date=2007 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/20071557495f3d106211554 |accessdate=2019-02-11 |quote=}}</ref> the court found that Blockbuster's arbitration provision was illusory and unenforceable, because there was nothing in the Terms and Conditions that would prevent Blockbuster from "unilaterally changing any part of the contract."


==Significance==
==Significance==
Line 49: Line 55:
[[Category:United States district court cases]]
[[Category:United States district court cases]]
[[Category:Blockbuster LLC]]
[[Category:Blockbuster LLC]]
{{US-case-law-stub}}

Revision as of 01:35, 4 June 2021

Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.
CourtUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Full case name Cathryn Elaine Harris, et al. v. Blockbuster, Inc.
DecidedApril 15, 2009
Docket nos.3:09-cv-00217
DefendantBlockbuster, Inc.
PlaintiffsCathryn Elaine Harris, et al.
Citation622 F. Supp. 2d 396
Court membership
Judge sittingBarbara M. Lynn

Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc., 622 F. Supp. 2d 396 (N.D. Tex. 2009),[1] established precedent in the district that when a contract has a clause that authorizes one party to make changes to the "contract" without notification, that it is illusory and hence the entire "contract" is void.

Background

Blockbuster operates a service called Blockbuster Online that allows customers to rent movies through the internet and entered a contract with Facebook to disseminate customer's movie choices through social media on Facebook, where Facebook broadcast a customer's movie rental choice to their Facebook friends when a video rental transaction is made. The plaintiffs claim that agreement with Facebook violates the Video Privacy Protection Act, which prohibits video service providers from disclosing personal identifiable information without consent.

Blockbuster attempted to invoke an arbitration provision that customers agreed to in the "Terms and Conditions" when joining Blockbuster Online. The provision waives the right of its users to commence any class action and allowed Blockbuster to reserves the right to modify the "Terms and Conditions" at its sole discretion and at any time. The plaintiffs argued that the arbitration provision was unenforceable because it was illusory and unconscionable. Blockbuster issued a motion to compel individual arbitration.


Judgment

On April 15, 2009, the District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied Blockbuster's motion to compel and ruled that Blockbuster Online's Terms and Conditions were unenforceable because they gave Blockbuster too much discretion in modifying the terms of the agreement. Following the reasoning in a Fifth Circuit case, Morrison v. Amway Corp.,[2] and consistent with a Ninth Circuit case, Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America[3] the court found that Blockbuster's arbitration provision was illusory and unenforceable, because there was nothing in the Terms and Conditions that would prevent Blockbuster from "unilaterally changing any part of the contract."

Significance

Some websites' "terms and conditions" may be deemed an illusory contract and unenforceable if the language can be changed at any time by the company without notifying users and giving them a chance to reject the new changes.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc., 622 F. Supp. 2d 396 (N.D. Tex. 2009).
  2. ^ Morrison v. Amway Corp., 517 F.3d 248 (5th Cir. 2008).
  3. ^ Douglas v. U.S. Dist. Court ex rel Talk America, 495 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2007).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harris_v._Blockbuster,_Inc.&oldid=1026746897"