Blanks v. TDS Telecommunications LLC

Page 762

          Appeal from Cherokee Circuit Court (CV-18-900097)

          D. Frank Davis, John E. Norris, Wesley W. Barnett, Dargan M. Ware, and Kristan B. Rivers of Davis & Norris, LLP, Birmingham, for appellants.

          Thomas J. Butler and Taryn E. Hodinka of Maynard, Cooper & Gale LLP, Birmingham; and Eric S. Mattson and Angelo J. Suozzi of Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for appellees.

         SELLERS, Justice.

         Jason Blanks, Peggy Manley, Kimberly Lee, Nancy Watkins, Randall Smith, Trenton Norton, Earl Kelly, Jennifer Scott, and Alyshia Kilgore (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the customers") appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration and a declaratory judgment entered in an action brought by TDS Telecommunications LLC, and its two affiliates, Peoples Telephone Company, Inc., and Butler Telephone Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Internet providers"). In the declaratory-judgment action, the trial court ruled that the Internet providers are not required to arbitrate disputes with the customers. We reverse and remand.

         Background

         The customers subscribe to Internet service furnished by the Internet providers; their relationship is governed by a written "Terms of Service."

         The customers allege that the Internet service they have received is slower than the Internet providers promised them. At the time the customers learned that their Internet service was allegedly deficient, the Terms of Service contained an arbitration clause providing that "any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to [the Terms of Service] shall be resolved by binding arbitration at the request of either party." The arbitration clause also incorporated the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association ("the AAA"). The customers' attorney notified the Internet providers that he intended to

Page 763

initiate AAA arbitration proceedings with respect to the dispute regarding Internet speed.

         Soon after the Internet providers learned of the customers' plan to arbitrate, the Internet providers updated the Terms of Service. As part of the update, the arbitration clause was modified. Among other things, the clause now states that all disputes arising out of or relating to the Terms of Service must be submitted to "JAMS" for arbitration.^[1] Also included in the updated Terms of Service, however, is a provision expressly stating that the arbitration clause "does not apply to customers who receive services in Alabama or Georgia, and [the Internet providers] expressly [do] not consent to arbitration of any dispute, claim or controversy— regardless of when the dispute, claim, or controversy arose— for customers who receive services in Alabama or Georgia."^[2]

         The prior Terms of Service stated that the Internet providers could modify the terms at any time and in any manner, that such a modification becomes effective upon notice of the modification to the Internet providers' customers, and that the continued use of the Internet service constitutes acceptance of the modification. The customers do not dispute that, on the day the Terms of Service was updated, the Internet providers gave them notice of the update. They also do not dispute that they continued to use their Internet service after they received that notice.

         Notwithstanding the updated Terms of Service and its provision excluding the customers from arbitration, the customers indicated that they would continue to press for arbitration. Indeed, after the Terms of Service ...