A District Court judge in Illinois has granted a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action over text messages that the defendant sent to the plaintiff years after the plaintiff applied for a loan with the defendant.
The Background: The plaintiff applied for a loan via the defendant’s website in 2017. As part of the application process, the plaintiff was presented with a screen that indicated he had read, understood, and consented to the language outlines in a number of policies and agreements, including the defendant’s Electronic Communications Policy and the Arbitration Agreement. All of the agreements were hyperlinked in blue font to the full text. The plaintiff checked a box that was labeled, “I Agree” and subsequently applied for the loan.
- The defendant sent the plaintiff two text messages — one in 2022 and one in 2023 — each attempting to sell financial services. The plaintiff had registered his phone number with the national Do Not Call registry and claims he did not provide consent or invite the text messages from the defendant and did not engage in any transactions with the defendant in the previous 18 months.
The Ruling: The plaintiff’s main argument is that he did not consent to receiving the text messages in question, but to Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, that was not the issue. The issue is whether the plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement he consented to when he applied for the loan.
- The arbitration agreement indicated the plaintiff would arbitrate “any claim, dispute or controversy arising out of or related to .. (ii) [his] submission of information to SoFi in connection with any non-mortgage loan offered by SoFi [or] . (v) the disclosures provided to [him] by SoFi in connection with any non-mortgage loan offered by SoFi?”
- Had the plaintiff read the agreements, he would have noticed there was a provision that indicated individuals could change their TCPA preferences and could revoke consent by doing so on the defendant’s website. “Strong or weak, [the plaintiff’s] claims fall within the scope of the Agreement,” Judge Coleman wrote.
- The plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal in the case.