Altice USA, Inc., D/B/A Suddenlink Communications v. Ronnie Francis and Debbie Francis

Summary

The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the denial of Suddenlink Communications’ motion to compel arbitration in a dispute involving service outages, billing issues, and alleged violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The court held that the customers manifested assent to Suddenlink’s Residential Services Agreement, including its arbitration provision, by paying invoices that directed them to the agreement online. The court also rejected the customers’ challenges based on mutuality of obligation, unconscionability, and the scope of the arbitration provision.

Holdings

1. The Francises manifested assent to the Residential Services Agreement, including its arbitration provision, by paying monthly invoices that directed them to the agreement on Suddenlink's website and stated that payment confirmed acceptance of the terms.
2. The arbitration provision was enforceable because it appeared in writing on Suddenlink's website, the absence of a signed writing did not defeat enforcement, and the provision was supported by mutuality of obligation.
3. The Francises failed to establish that the arbitration provision was procedurally or substantively unconscionable.
4. The Francises' breach-of-contract and Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration provision and were subject to arbitration.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Francises manifested assent to Suddenlink's Residential Services Agreement, including its arbitration provision, by paying monthly invoices that referred to the agreement on Suddenlink's website.
2. Whether the arbitration provision satisfied the Federal Arbitration Act's writing requirement and was supported by mutuality of obligation.
3. Whether the Francises' challenges based on unconscionability, the statute of frauds, and Suddenlink's franchise agreement with the City of Arkadelphia defeated enforcement of the arbitration provision.
4. Whether the Francises' breach-of-contract and Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims fell within the scope of the arbitration provision.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded