In a case of first impression, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Vitacost.com v. James McCants upheld a trial court’s ruling that an arbitration clause, contained in an online vendor’s terms and conditions “browsewrap” agreement, was not sufficiently incorporated into an internet sale and was therefore unenforceable.
The products liability lawsuit arose out of a consumer’s purchase and consumption of dietary supplements from Vitacost.com, an internet dietary supplement vendor, which the consumer alleged caused liver damage. During the litigation, Vitacost.com sought to compel arbitration. The trial court refused to order the parties to arbitration, finding that the plaintiff-consumer was not bound by the arbitration clause because Vitacost.com did not provide effective notice of the clause—contained within an inconspicuous “browsewrap” terms and conditions agreement on Vitacost.com’s website—during the online transaction. The Fourth District agreed.
