Keywords: Arizona, contractual provision, limitations period, false advertising
On August 15, 2012, a federal court in Arizona dismissed a putative class action asserting false-advertising claims against internet domain-name registrar GoDaddy.com. See WineStyles, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC , No. 2:12-cv-00583-SRB (D. Ariz. Aug. 15, 2012). In doing so, the court enforced a contractual provision requiring particular claims to be brought within one year, holding as a matter of law that the provision was neither unreasonable nor unconscionable.
The plaintiff in the case, a wine retailer, had agreed to GoDaddy's Uniform Terms of Service in the course of paying for domain registrations online. One of the provisions in the terms stated claims "arising out of or related to [GoDaddy's] Site or the Services found at [its] Site" must be brought within one year of the accrual of the claim. The plaintiff subsequently filed a putative nationwide class action against GoDaddy, alleging that its practice of charging fees for automatic renewals of certain domain registrations violated state deceptive trade practices acts, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and various common-law doctrines.
GoDaddy moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the contractual one-year limitations period because the claims had accrued when the plaintiff was first charged renewal fees, which was more than one year before the plaintiff filed suit. The court agreed that the common-law claims were barred, but held that the statutory claims were timely because they also were based on other events that had occurred within the one-year period. (The court ultimately dismissed those statutory claims for other reasons.)
The plaintiff contended that the contractual one-year limitations period was unconscionable because GoDaddy's online terms were a "contract of adhesion" and because it purported to shorten statutes of limitations. The court rejected this argument, explaining that even though this was a "contract of adhesion," the provision reducing the applicable statute of limitations was enforceable so long as the contractual limitations period was reasonable in length. In the court's view, a one-year period satisfied that test.
The court's decision in WineStyles should be of interest to any business that includes (or is considering including) in its contracts with customers or other contracting parties a clause requiring that disputes be brought within a certain time frame.
Originally published on August 23, 2012.
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.
© Copyright 2012. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.