Pierce, N. v. FloatMe Corp.

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reviews FloatMe Corp.’s appeal from an order overruling preliminary objections seeking to compel arbitration in a consumer class action. The court addresses whether an enforceable arbitration agreement was formed through FloatMe’s mobile-app signup process, including the sufficiency and timing of notice of linked terms and the propriety of supplementing the appellate record with evidence not presented to the trial court. The court denies FloatMe’s application to correct or supplement the record and proceeds to review the arbitration issue based on the record developed below.

Holdings

1. Rule 1926 permits correction or supplementation to ensure that the record accurately reflects what occurred in the trial court, but it does not permit a party to expand the record with new evidence that was not before the trial court when it ruled.
2. FloatMe failed to establish the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement because it did not submit competent evidence showing what screens Pierce viewed when she signed up for FloatMe's services.
3. The alleged sign-up process did not satisfy the requirements for an unambiguous manifestation of assent to arbitration because FloatMe did not show that the screens explicitly informed Pierce that agreeing to the Terms and Conditions waived her right to a jury trial.
4. FloatMe failed to establish that Texas law governed because it did not adequately respond to Pierce's argument that a contractual choice-of-law clause cannot be applied before the existence of a contract is established.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appellate record could be supplemented under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1926 with screenshots and an amended affidavit that were filed after the trial court ruled and were not before that court.
2. Whether FloatMe established the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate through evidence of the sign-up screens allegedly presented to Pierce.
3. Whether the online sign-up process satisfied Pennsylvania law, including the requirements announced in Chilutti, for an unambiguous manifestation of assent to arbitration and waiver of the constitutional right to a jury trial.
4. Whether FloatMe established that Texas law governed the formation and enforceability of the alleged arbitration agreement.

Disposition

affirmed