Good News for Consumers – Supreme Court’s Decision Not to Hear Appeals Means Arbitration Clauses Still Cannot be Hidden in a Product’s Packaging – at Least in California
On October 2, 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied Samsung’s appeals from two joint decisions by the Ninth Circuit of Appeals on Norcia v. Samsung Telecoms. Am. LLC, 845 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2017) and Dang v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 673 F. App’x 7798 (9th Cir. 2017). Before Norcia and Dang decisions, it was common practice for a manufacturer to include terms and conditions inside a product’s packaging. Within those terms were clauses forcing consumers to forego their rights to band together or go to court against the manufacturer. The Ninth Circuit’s decisions struck down enforcement on the grounds that for the clause to be applied, a consumer must know about it prior purchasing the item. The opinion became law for many consumers, including those in the country’s most populous state—California.
The Ninth Circuit decisions are at odds with the Seventh Circuit’s 1997 opinion in Hill v. Gateway 2000, which established a company’s ability to “shrink-wrap” terms in a product’s packaging. This split between the Ninth and Seventh Circuits means an arbitration clause found in the packaging of a Samsung phone is enforceable in Chicago but not in Los Angeles.
It is yet to be determined what effect the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeals will have on modern commerce and contracting. Halunen Law’s Consumer Class Action team served as co-counsel and prevailed in Dang v. Samsung Elecs. Co. We will continue to closely monitor these cases in our vigilant defense of consumer rights across the country.
Review the Supreme Court’s recent action on this case
With abounding energy and a quest to unearth the details, Halunen Law attorney Charles Moore brings analytic skills and insight to each class action case. His work includes cases involving consumer products, financial scams, and pharmaceuticals. Seeing his work impact not just consumers, but our society as a whole drives his steadfast determination.
The Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision last month in Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailers, Inc. that is a victory for undocumented workers in Minnesota, and, more generally, for all employees in Minnesota who are terminated by their employers because they seek 
Mandatory arbitration and class action lawsuits are much in the news lately. The recent disclosure of the hacking at Equifax has people thinking about these topics, and some class actions have already been filed. 
This recent posting by Public Justice shows the importance of preserving the class action mechanism from arbitration clauses that prohibit class actions. Individual consumers often do not have the resources to challenge illegal conduct by a large corporation. In the attached story, if class actions were not available, military personnel would not have been able to challenge a blatant violation of the law by the Bank of America.
Back in March I wrote a 
A $12 million settlement was reached in a False Claims Act case alleging kickbacks to physicians for using Sightpath Medical Products in eye surgeries. The relator, Kipp Fesenmaier, was vice president of the company and reported that kickbacks were being offered to physicians to bribe them to use Sightpath Medical products. These kickbacks came in the form of sham consulting agreements and free entertainment – including hunting, fishing, and skiing trips. Halunen Law was proud to work with lead counsel from Morgan Verkamp LLC in this case. Susan Coler, head of Halunen Law’s