Preview
1 Michele Floyd (SBN 163031)
mfloyd@srclaw.com
2 Adrianna A. Rubino (SBN 300951) ELECTRONICALLY
arubino@srclaw.com F I L E D
3 SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP Superior Court of California,
177 Post Street, Suite 650 County of San Francisco
4 San Francisco, CA 94108 07/13/2020
Tel: 415-549-0580 Clerk of the Court
5 Fax: 415-549-0640 BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
Deputy Clerk
6 Attorneys for Defendant
Airbnb, Inc.
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 GEORGIA WALKER AND RAY MURILLO, CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
12 Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING
DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S
13 v. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
14 AIRBNB, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and MOTION TO COMPEL
DOES 1-50, Inclusive, ARBITRATION
15
Defendants. Date: August 12, 2020
16 Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 302
17 Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman
18
Complaint Filed: January 29, 2020
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
________________________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Airbnb, Inc.’s Memorandum of Points and
3 Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration included the following inadvertent
4 clerical errors regarding page citations and quotations:
5 The Terms of Service (“TOS”) page number citation at page 10,
line 3, should have been “p. 11” rather than “p. 32.”
6
7 The TOS quotation at page 11, lines 4-5, should have been “19.1
This Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Agreement shall apply
8 if your (i) country of residence . . . is in the United States . . . .”
rather than “19.1 This Dispute Resolution and Arbitration
9 Agreement shall apply if you bring any claims against Airbnb in
the United States . . . .”
10
11 The TOS page number citation at page 11, line 13, should have
been “pp. 19-20” rather than “pp. 40-41.”
12
The TOS page number citation at page 11, line 20, should have
13 been “p. 20” rather than “p. 41.”
14
The TOS page number citation at page 11, footnote 2, should
15 have been “p. 6” rather than “p. 28.”
16 The TOS page number citation at page 12, line 11, should have
been “p. 20” rather than “p. 41.”
17
The TOS page number citation at page 14, footnote 6, should
18
have been “p. 20” rather than “p. 41.”
19
The TOS page number citation at page 17, line 20, should have
20 been “p. 20” rather than “p. 41.”
21 The TOS page number citation at page 18, footnote 9, should
22 have been “p. 20” rather than “p. 41.”
23 Submitted herewith as Exhibit A is the corrected version of Defendant Airbnb, Inc.’s
24 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration, which shall
25 supersede the erroneous version for all purposes.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2
NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
1 Dated: July 13, 2020 SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP
By: /s/ Adrianna A. Rubino .
2 MICHELE FLOYD
3 ADRIANNA A. RUBINO
Attorneys for Defendant
4 AIRBNB, INC.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
EXHIBIT A
1 Michele Floyd (SBN 163031)
mfloyd@srclaw.com
2 Adrianna A. Rubino (SBN 300951)
arubino@srclaw.com
3 SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 650
4 San Francisco, CA 94108
Tel: 415-549-0580
5 Fax: 415-549-0640
6
Attorneys for Defendant
7 Airbnb, Inc.
8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 GEORGIA WALKER AND RAY MURILLO, CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
12 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
13 v. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL
14 AIRBNB, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and ARBITRATION
DOES 1-50, Inclusive,
15 Date: August 12, 2020
Defendants. Time: 9:30 a.m.
16 Dept.: 302
17 Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman
18 Complaint Filed: January 29, 2020
19 Filed/Lodged herewith:
1. Notice of Motion and Motion
20 2. Declaration of Kyle Miller
3. Declaration of Adrianna A. Rubino
21
4. [Proposed] Order
22 5. Notice of Payment of Court Reporter
Fee
23
24
25
26
27
28
________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 6
3
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 7
4 A. Allegations of the Complaint .................................................................................. 7
5 B. The Terms of Service .............................................................................................. 8
6 1. The Airbnb Platform: How it Works ........................................................ 8
2. Plaintiffs Assented to the TOS................................................................... 9
7
3. The TOS Contains a Broad Arbitration Provision That Delegates all
8 Gateway Issues to the Arbitrator.............................................................. 10
9 III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 12
10 A. The Federal Arbitration Act Governs and Requires Arbitration ........................... 12
B. The Court Must Compel Arbitration of Plaintiffs’ Claims Because They
11 Assented to The TOS and the Arbitration Provision ........................................... 13
12 C. The Delegation Clause is “Clear and Unmistakable” and Thus Compels
Arbitration of all Gateway Issues Including Scope ............................................. 16
13
D. Litigation Must be Stayed Pending Arbitration .................................................... 19
14
IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
2
Cases
3
Aanderud v. Super. Ct.,
4 13 Cal. App. 5th 880 (2017) ............................................................................................... 17, 18
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
5
563 U.S. 333 (2011) ........................................................................................................... 13, 16
6 AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am.,
7 475 U.S. 643 (1986) ................................................................................................................. 16
Bos Material Handling, Inc. v. Crown Controls Corp.,
8 137 Cal. App. 3d 99 (1982) ...................................................................................................... 17
9 Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc.,
207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................. 13
10
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd,
11 470 U.S. 213 (1985) ........................................................................................................... 14, 19
12 DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia,
136 S. Ct. 463 (2015) ............................................................................................................... 12
13
Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater,
14 124 Cal. App. 4th 547 (2004) ............................................................................................. 16, 17
Engalla v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc.,
15
15 Cal. 4th 951 (1997) .............................................................................................................. 13
16 First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan,
17 514 U.S. 938 (1995) ..................................................................................................... 14, 16, 17
Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.,
18 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) ............................................................................................................... 16
19 In re Apple iPhone 3G Prods. Liab. Litig.,
859 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................... 16
20
Larian v. Larian,
21 123 Cal. App. 4th 751 (2004), as modified (Nov. 16, 2004) .................................................... 14
22 Larkin v. Williams, Woolley, Cogswell, Nakazawa & Russell,
76 Cal. App. 4th 227 (1999) ..................................................................................................... 13
23
Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc.,
24 363 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 14
25 Malone v. Super. Ct.,
226 Cal. App. 4th 1551 (2014) ........................................................................................... 17, 18
26 Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler–Plymouth, Inc.,
27 473 U.S. 614 (1985) ................................................................................................................. 13
28
3
DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
1 Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
848 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................ 17, 18
2 Momot v. Mastro,
3 652 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................. 17, 18
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
4 460 U.S. 1 (1983) ......................................................................................................... 12, 13, 16
5 Naria v. Trover Solutions, Inc.,
967 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .............................................................................. 13, 14
6
Plazza et al. v. Airbnb, Inc.,
7 No. 16-CV-1085, 2018 WL 583122 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2018) .................................................. 7
8 Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson,
561 U.S. 63 (2010) ............................................................................................................. 16, 17
9
Rice v. Downs,
10 248 Cal. App. 4th 175 (2016) ................................................................................................... 17
11 Rosenthal v. Great W. Fin. Sec. Corp.,
14 Cal. 4th 394 (1996) .............................................................................................................. 14
12 Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC,
13 61 Cal. 4th 899 (2015) .............................................................................................................. 13
Sandquist v. Lebo Auto., Inc.,
14 1 Cal. 5th 233 (2016) ................................................................................................................ 16
15 Selden v. Airbnb, Inc.,
No. 16-cv-00933 (CRC), 2016 WL 6476934 (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2016) ............................ 7, 15, 16
16
Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc.,
17 175 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 1999) .............................................................................................. 16, 17
18 Swift v. Zynga Game Network, Inc.,
805 F. Supp. 2d 904 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ...................................................................................... 15
19
Thomas v. Westlake,
20 204 Cal. App. 4th 605 (2012) ................................................................................................... 19
21 Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc.,
226 Cal. App. 4th 231 (2014) ............................................................................................. 17, 18
22 Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc.,
23 No. 5:13-CV-05682-LHK, 2014 WL 2903752 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2014), aff’d 840 F.3d 1016
(9th Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................................................... 15
24 Trujillo v. Gomez,
25 No. 14cv2483-BTM (BGS), 2015 WL 1757870 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2015) ............................ 13
Vernon v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc.,
26 857 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (D. Colo. 2012), aff’d 925 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (D. Colo. 2013) .............. 15
27 Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ.,
489 U.S. 468 (1989) ................................................................................................................. 13
28
4
DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
1 Statutes
9 U.S.C. § 2 .................................................................................................................................. 13
2
9 U.S.C. § 3 .................................................................................................................................. 19
3
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 .................................................................................................... 8
4 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1280 .................................................................................................. 12, 13
5 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.2 ..................................................................................................... 12
6 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.4 ..................................................................................................... 19
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 This lawsuit cannot proceed in this forum because it is subject to mandatory,
3 contractual arbitration. Each claim asserted arises out of an accommodation booking that
4 Plaintiffs Georgia Walker and Ray Murillo (“Plaintiffs”) made through Airbnb’s online
5 platform using Plaintiff Murillo’s Airbnb account. Plaintiffs allege that their Host recorded
6 them without their consent through a camera that was hidden in a smoke detector located in the
7 accommodation. Based on this primary allegation of nonconsensual recording, Plaintiffs assert
8 eight causes of action against Airbnb that range from negligence to unfair competition.
9 As an initial matter, all of Plaintiffs’ causes of action are premised on a landlord-tenant
10 relationship and are therefore properly brought against their Host, not against Airbnb. But,
11 setting that fact aside, Plaintiffs’ relationship with Airbnb is contractual and is governed by
12 Airbnb’s Terms of Service (“TOS”), which contains an agreement to arbitrate. It is undisputed
13 that both Plaintiffs have Airbnb accounts and that both assented to the TOS when they created
14 those accounts. In fact, it is impossible to create an Airbnb account and/or book
15 accommodations through Airbnb’s online platform without first agreeing to the TOS.
16 A court is limited to two inquiries on a motion to compel arbitration: whether the
17 Plaintiffs assented to the arbitration and whether their claims fall within the scope of the
18 arbitration provision. Assent is unquestionably established here. Airbnb’s automated,
19 computerized business records confirm that Plaintiff Murillo assented to Version 5 of the TOS
20 on September 6, 2016 when he created his Airbnb account and then later assented to Version 6
21 on December 26, 2016, Version 7 on September 13, 2017, Version 8 on November 21, 2018,
22 and Version 10 on April 7, 2019. Airbnb’s business records further confirm that Plaintiff
23 Walker assented to Version 6 of the TOS on March 13, 2017 when she created her Airbnb
24 account and then later assented to Version 7 on December 28, 2017. Several courts, including
25 California courts, have unanimously agreed that Airbnb account holders affirmatively assent to
26 the TOS when they create their accounts and are therefore bound to arbitrate their claims
27
28
6
DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
1 against Airbnb.1 There are no facts that compel a different result here.
2 Once assent is established, this Court’s inquiry must end because the arbitration
3 provision contains a delegation clause that validly delegates all remaining threshold issues to
4 the arbitrator for resolution. The Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and California state courts
5 all agree that a “clear and unmistakable” delegation clause is enforceable, and the delegation
6 clause here is “clear and unmistakable.” Using express language, it delegates all issues
7 pertaining to the “breach, termination, validity, enforcement or interpretation” of the arbitration
8 provision to the arbitrator. Both federal and state courts in California have enforced delegation
9 provisions using language much less “clear and unmistakable” than the language that Plaintiffs
10 agreed to here. Accordingly, whether Plaintiffs’ particular claims fall within the scope of the
11 arbitration provision and whether any defense to arbitration exists (including
12 unconscionability) are questions that must be resolved by the arbitrator and not this Court.
13 Because assent is easily established and the delegation clause is “clear and unmistakable,” this
14 Court must compel arbitration.
15 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
16 A. Allegations of the Complaint
17 All of Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the alleged conduct of their Airbnb Host. Plaintiffs
18 allege that they booked an apartment located at 230 West Alabama Street, Unit 804, City of
19
1
20 Several courts have considered the enforceability of Airbnb’s arbitration provision and all
have compelled arbitration. See Hollywood et al. v. Airbnb, Inc., L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Case
21 No. BC601165 (Apr. 20, 2016), a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exh. A to the
22 Declaration of Adrianna A. Rubino (“Rubino Decl.”); see also Stutland et al. v. Airbnb, Inc. et
al., L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Case No. BC581681 (Mar. 22, 2017) at Rubino Decl., Exh. B; Fogel
23 et al. v. Hacker et al., L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Case No. BC651607 (Aug. 29, 2017) at Rubino
Decl., Exh. D; Mazaheri et al. v. Bob et al., L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Case No. BC658417 (Sept.
24 21, 2017) at Rubino Decl., Exh. E; Plazza et al. v. Airbnb, Inc., Case No. 16-CV-1085, 2018
WL 583122 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2018) at Rubino Decl., Exh. F; Senders v. Airbnb, Inc. et al.,
25
S.F. Super. Ct., Case No. CGC-17-561710 (Mar. 14, 2018) at Rubino Decl., Exh. G; Selden v.
26 Airbnb, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-00933 (CRC), 2016 WL 6476934 (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2016)
(compelling plaintiff there to arbitrate his claims after finding that he assented to the TOS) at
27 Rubino Decl., Exh. C. This Court most recently did so in McCluskey v. Airbnb, Inc. et al., S.F.
Super. Ct., Case No. CGC-18-563528 (May 30, 2018) at Rubino Decl., Exh. H; McCluskey v.
28 Henry et al., S.F. Super. Ct., Case No. CGC-18-567741 (Nov. 7, 2018) at Rubino Decl., Exh. I.
7
DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
1 Houston, County of Harris, State of Texas, from October 9, 2019 to October 11, 2019. Compl.
2 ¶¶ 19, 22. Plaintiffs’ claims are all premised on their allegation that their Host recorded them
3 without their consent through a camera that was allegedly hidden in a smoke detector. Id. ¶ 26.
4 More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they were not “inform[ed] . . . that a video camera or
5 digital audio and imaging recording device was located in the subject premises or that it was
6 being controlled from a remote location in order to observe and listen to plaintiff [sic] during
7 plaintiff’s [sic] stay within the subject premises.” Id.; see also id. ¶¶ 28, 30 (alleging after
8 “engag[ing] in highly personal matters and intimate affairs” during their stay, Plaintiffs
9 “discovered a video/digital camera disguised as a smoke detector”).
10 To remedy these issues, Plaintiffs allege they “complained to the [Host] through the
11 review of [the Host’s] Airbnb profile,” which resulted in the Host acknowledging that there
12 was a hidden camera in the accommodation, and Plaintiffs covering the lens thereof during the
13 remainder of their stay. Id. ¶ 31. Plaintiffs further allege that they complained to Airbnb about
14 the Host and the accommodation but that the accommodation is still listed on Airbnb’s
15 platform. Id. ¶¶ 31-32.
16 Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert eight causes of action against Airbnb: (1)
17 negligence, including negligence per se; (2) intrusion of privacy; (3) trespass; (4) fraud; (5)
18 negligent misrepresentation; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) negligent
19 infliction of emotional distress; and (8) violation of Business and Professions Code section
20 17200 et seq. As is evident, all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Airbnb arise out of and relate to
21 their Airbnb account and use of the Airbnb online platform and services.
22 B. The Terms of Service
23 1. The Airbnb Platform: How it Works
24 Airbnb provides an online platform that connects third-parties who wish to offer their
25 unique accommodations (called “Hosts”) with third-party travelers seeking to book
26 accommodations (called “Guests”). Declaration of Kyle Miller (“Miller Decl.”), ¶ 2. Hosts
27 are responsible for listing their accommodations on the platform, including deciding to whom,
28 when and on what material terms they offer their accommodations. Id.
8
DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
1 Airbnb does not own or control the properties listed on the platform, and Airbnb does
2 not operate, manage or otherwise have any interest in, or grant any interest in, properties that
3 Hosts list on the platform. Id. In short, Airbnb is not a landlord and does not act as one.
4 Agreements for short-term and long-term bookings are made solely between the Hosts and
5 Guests directly and Airbnb is not a party to them. Id.
6 2. Plaintiffs Assented to the TOS
7 The relationship between Airbnb and those who use its website and services is
8 governed by the TOS. Since at least 2011, it has been impossible to create an account and use
9 Airbnb’s services without first having agreed to the TOS. Miller Decl., ¶ 5. The TOS is
10 presented to users via hyperlink directly below the on-screen sign-up buttons during the
11 account registration process and then presented again every time the TOS is updated. Id. ¶¶ 7-
12 8. Airbnb captures and records the date upon which each registrant accepts the TOS in its
13 business records. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8, 10. Plaintiff Murillo assented to Version 5 of the TOS when he
14 created his account on September 6, 2016. Miller Decl., ¶¶ 11-13, Exhs. B-1 – B-5. Airbnb’s
15 business records confirm that Plaintiff Walker assented to Version 6 of the TOS when she
16 created her Airbnb account on March 13, 2017. Id. ¶¶ 18-19, Exhs. C-1 – C-4.
17 Airbnb updates its TOS from time to time. When the TOS is updated, existing account
18 holders must accept the updated Version before they can access their accounts and/or list or
19 book accommodations. Id. ¶¶ 8, 14-15, 21-22. Specifically, the first time that existing account
20 holders access the Airbnb website after a TOS update, they are presented with a pop-up screen
21 that notifies them of the nature of the update and contains either a scroll box or a hyperlink to
22 the full text of the updated TOS. Id. Account holders must click a button confirming that they
23 “agree” to the updated Terms of Service in order to continue with their search. Id. That page
24 also includes a “Disagree” button. Id. Those who click “disagree” are logged out of the
25 system. Id. Airbnb captures and records in its business records each date upon which
26 registrants accept Airbnb’s TOS, including updated versions of the TOS. Id. These records
27 confirm that Plaintiff Murillo assented to the Version 6 update on December 26, 2016, the
28 Version 7 update on September 13, 2017, the Version 8 update on November 21, 2018, and the
9
DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
1 Version 10 update on April 7, 2019, and that Plaintiff Walker assented to the Version 7 update
2 on December 28, 2017. Id. ¶¶ 14, 21, Exhs. B-3 & C-3. Accordingly, both Plaintiffs assented
3 to the TOS. See also id. ¶ 16, Exh. B-9, p. 11 (§ 8.1.3) (“If you book a Host Service on behalf
4 of additional guests, you are required to ensure that every additionally guest . . . is made aware
5 of and agrees to these Terms . . . .”).
6 3. The TOS Contains a Broad Arbitration Provision That Delegates all
7 Gateway Issues to the Arbitrator
8 The TOS applies broadly and governs all uses of Airbnb’s online platform, content and
9 services:
10 By accessing or using the Airbnb Platform, you agree to comply
with and be bound by these Terms.
11 ***
12 These Terms constitute a legally binding agreement ("Agreement")
between you and Airbnb (as defined below) governing your access
13 to and use of the Airbnb website, including any subdomains thereof,
and any other websites through which Airbnb makes its services
14 available (collectively, "Site"), our mobile, tablet and other smart
15 device applications, and application program interfaces (collectively,
"Application") and all associated services (collectively, "Airbnb
16 Services"). The Site, Application and Airbnb Services together are
hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Airbnb Platform.”
17
18 Miller Decl., ¶ 16, Exh. B-9, pp. 1-2 (TOS Version 10) (emphasis in original). At the very top
19 of Version 10 of the TOS is a bolded section notifying users that there is an arbitration
20 provision:
21 Please note: Section 19 of these Terms contains an arbitration
clause and class action waiver that applies to all Airbnb
22 Members. If your country of residence is the United States, this
provision applies to all disputes with Airbnb. If your country of
23
residence is outside of the United States, this provision applies
24 to any action you bring against Airbnb in the United States. It
affects how disputes with Airbnb are resolved. By accepting
25 these Terms, you agree to be bound by this arbitration clause
and class action waiver. Please read it carefully.
26
27 Id. at p. 1 (emphasis in original). “Section 19” is a hyperlink that takes the reader immediately
28 to the arbitration provision.
10
DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
1 Section 19, the arbitration provision itself, is expressly broad and governs all disputes
2 against Airbnb that arise out of or relate to any use of the Airbnb platform and services:
3 19. Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Agreement
4 19.1 This Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Agreement shall apply
if your (i) country of residence . . . is in the United States . . . .
5
***
6 19.4 Agreement to Arbitrate. You and Airbnb mutually agree
that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating
7 to these Terms or the applicability, breach, termination, validity,
8 enforcement or interpretation thereof, or to the use of the
Airbnb Platform, the Host Services, the Group Payment Service,
9 or the Collective Content (collectively, “Disputes”) will be
settled by binding individual arbitration (the “Arbitration
10 Agreement”). If there is a dispute about whether this
11 Arbitration Agreement can be enforced or applies to our
Dispute, you and Airbnb agree that the arbitrator will decide
12 that issue.
13 Miller Decl., ¶ 16, Exh. B-9, pp. 19-20 (TOS Version 10) (emphasis in original).2
14 The scope of the arbitration provision is broad and it expressly includes arbitration of all
15 disputes involving the “breach, termination, validity, enforcement or interpretation” of the
16 arbitration provision itself. Id. Thus, the arbitration provision expressly delegates all issues of
17 arbitrability to the arbitrator. The only claims that the arbitration agreement expressly exempts
18 are not applicable here—namely, those involving actual or threatened patent infringement,
19 misappropriation, or violation of a party’s copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, patents, or other
20 intellectual property rights. See id. at p. 20.
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25
2
“Collective Content” is defined as any “text, photos, audio, video, or other materials and
26 information” that Members “create, upload, post, send, receive and store” on or through the
Airbnb Platform, as well as “any content that Airbnb itself makes available on or through the
27 Airbnb Platform, including proprietary Airbnb content and any content licensed or authorized
for use by or through Airbnb from a third party.” Miller Decl., ¶ 16, Exh. B-9, p. 6 (TOS
28 Version 10).
11
DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
1 III. ARGUMENT
2 A. The Federal Arbitration Act Governs and Requires Arbitration
3 The arbitration provision is governed expressly by the Federal Arbitration Act
4 (“FAA”):
5 19.6 Arbitration Rules and Governing Law. This Arbitration
Agreement evidences a transaction in interstate commerce and thus
6 the Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and
enforcement of this provision. The arbitration will be administered
7
by AAA in accordance with the Consumer Arbitration Rules and/or
8 other AAA arbitration rules determined to be applicable by the AAA
(the “AAA Rules“) then in effect, except as modified here. The
9 AAA Rules are available at www.adr.org or by calling the AAA at
1–800–778–7879.
10
11 Miller Decl., ¶ 16, Exh. B-9, p. 20 (TOS Version 10) (emphasis added).
12 As the United States Supreme Court has made clear, the FAA—and the body of federal
13 law developed pursuant to it—governs the interpretation and application of an arbitration
14 provision that is expressly subject to its provisions. DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S. Ct. 463,
15 468 (2015) (confirming parties can contractually agree to designate FAA as governing law).
16 The FAA applies equally to claims brought in state court. Id.; Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v.
17 Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983) (“The basic issue presented . . . was the
18 arbitrability of the dispute . . . . Federal law in the terms of the Arbitration Act governs that
19 issue in either state or federal court.”). And, as the Supreme Court has further held, the FAA
20 preempts any inconsistent state law. DirecTV, 136 S. Ct. at 468 (holding that the Supremacy
21 Clause forbids state courts from dissociating themselves from federal law, and that as the law
22 of the United States, “the judges of every State must follow” the FAA). Accordingly, the FAA
23 and the body of federal law developed pursuant to it applies here.3
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27
3
Even so, the California Arbitration Act is largely consistent with the FAA. See Cal. Civ.
28 Proc. Code § 1281.2.
12
DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535
B. The Court Must Compel Arbitration of Plaintiffs’ Claims Because They
1 Assented to The TOS and the Arbitration Provision
2 Section 2 of the FAA codifies a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, making
3 arbitration provisions “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at
4 law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2; see AT&T Mobility LLC v.
5 Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339-40 (2011) (holding strong federal policy favoring arbitration
6 requires rigorous enforcement of arbitration agreements). Section 2 creates a heavy
7 presumption in favor of arbitrability that requires courts to resolve all doubt as to the scope of
8 arbitrable issues in favor of arbitration. Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 24-25
9 (holding “questions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal
10 policy favoring arbitration” and “any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should
11 be resolved in favor of arbitration”); Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland
12 Stanford Jr. Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 475 (1989) (noting “settled” rule that questions of
13 arbitrability in contracts subject to the FAA “must be resolved with a healthy regard for the
14 federal policy favoring arbitration”); Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler–Plymouth,
15
Preview
1 Michele Floyd (SBN 163031) mfloyd@srclaw.com 2 Adrianna A. Rubino (SBN 300951) ELECTRONICALLY arubino@srclaw.com F I L E D 3 SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP Superior Court of California, 177 Post Street, Suite 650 County of San Francisco 4 San Francisco, CA 94108 07/13/2020 Tel: 415-549-0580 Clerk of the Court 5 Fax: 415-549-0640 BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE Deputy Clerk 6 Attorneys for Defendant Airbnb, Inc. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 11 GEORGIA WALKER AND RAY MURILLO, CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 12 Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S 13 v. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 14 AIRBNB, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and MOTION TO COMPEL DOES 1-50, Inclusive, ARBITRATION 15 Defendants. Date: August 12, 2020 16 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 302 17 Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman 18 Complaint Filed: January 29, 2020 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ________________________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Airbnb, Inc.’s Memorandum of Points and 3 Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration included the following inadvertent 4 clerical errors regarding page citations and quotations: 5 The Terms of Service (“TOS”) page number citation at page 10, line 3, should have been “p. 11” rather than “p. 32.” 6 7 The TOS quotation at page 11, lines 4-5, should have been “19.1 This Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Agreement shall apply 8 if your (i) country of residence . . . is in the United States . . . .” rather than “19.1 This Dispute Resolution and Arbitration 9 Agreement shall apply if you bring any claims against Airbnb in the United States . . . .” 10 11 The TOS page number citation at page 11, line 13, should have been “pp. 19-20” rather than “pp. 40-41.” 12 The TOS page number citation at page 11, line 20, should have 13 been “p. 20” rather than “p. 41.” 14 The TOS page number citation at page 11, footnote 2, should 15 have been “p. 6” rather than “p. 28.” 16 The TOS page number citation at page 12, line 11, should have been “p. 20” rather than “p. 41.” 17 The TOS page number citation at page 14, footnote 6, should 18 have been “p. 20” rather than “p. 41.” 19 The TOS page number citation at page 17, line 20, should have 20 been “p. 20” rather than “p. 41.” 21 The TOS page number citation at page 18, footnote 9, should 22 have been “p. 20” rather than “p. 41.” 23 Submitted herewith as Exhibit A is the corrected version of Defendant Airbnb, Inc.’s 24 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration, which shall 25 supersede the erroneous version for all purposes. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 1 Dated: July 13, 2020 SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP By: /s/ Adrianna A. Rubino . 2 MICHELE FLOYD 3 ADRIANNA A. RUBINO Attorneys for Defendant 4 AIRBNB, INC. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 EXHIBIT A 1 Michele Floyd (SBN 163031) mfloyd@srclaw.com 2 Adrianna A. Rubino (SBN 300951) arubino@srclaw.com 3 SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 650 4 San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel: 415-549-0580 5 Fax: 415-549-0640 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 Airbnb, Inc. 8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 11 GEORGIA WALKER AND RAY MURILLO, CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 12 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 13 v. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 14 AIRBNB, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and ARBITRATION DOES 1-50, Inclusive, 15 Date: August 12, 2020 Defendants. Time: 9:30 a.m. 16 Dept.: 302 17 Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman 18 Complaint Filed: January 29, 2020 19 Filed/Lodged herewith: 1. Notice of Motion and Motion 20 2. Declaration of Kyle Miller 3. Declaration of Adrianna A. Rubino 21 4. [Proposed] Order 22 5. Notice of Payment of Court Reporter Fee 23 24 25 26 27 28 ________________________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 6 3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 7 4 A. Allegations of the Complaint .................................................................................. 7 5 B. The Terms of Service .............................................................................................. 8 6 1. The Airbnb Platform: How it Works ........................................................ 8 2. Plaintiffs Assented to the TOS................................................................... 9 7 3. The TOS Contains a Broad Arbitration Provision That Delegates all 8 Gateway Issues to the Arbitrator.............................................................. 10 9 III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 12 10 A. The Federal Arbitration Act Governs and Requires Arbitration ........................... 12 B. The Court Must Compel Arbitration of Plaintiffs’ Claims Because They 11 Assented to The TOS and the Arbitration Provision ........................................... 13 12 C. The Delegation Clause is “Clear and Unmistakable” and Thus Compels Arbitration of all Gateway Issues Including Scope ............................................. 16 13 D. Litigation Must be Stayed Pending Arbitration .................................................... 19 14 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) 2 Cases 3 Aanderud v. Super. Ct., 4 13 Cal. App. 5th 880 (2017) ............................................................................................... 17, 18 AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 5 563 U.S. 333 (2011) ........................................................................................................... 13, 16 6 AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 7 475 U.S. 643 (1986) ................................................................................................................. 16 Bos Material Handling, Inc. v. Crown Controls Corp., 8 137 Cal. App. 3d 99 (1982) ...................................................................................................... 17 9 Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................. 13 10 Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 11 470 U.S. 213 (1985) ........................................................................................................... 14, 19 12 DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S. Ct. 463 (2015) ............................................................................................................... 12 13 Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater, 14 124 Cal. App. 4th 547 (2004) ............................................................................................. 16, 17 Engalla v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., 15 15 Cal. 4th 951 (1997) .............................................................................................................. 13 16 First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 17 514 U.S. 938 (1995) ..................................................................................................... 14, 16, 17 Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 18 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) ............................................................................................................... 16 19 In re Apple iPhone 3G Prods. Liab. Litig., 859 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................... 16 20 Larian v. Larian, 21 123 Cal. App. 4th 751 (2004), as modified (Nov. 16, 2004) .................................................... 14 22 Larkin v. Williams, Woolley, Cogswell, Nakazawa & Russell, 76 Cal. App. 4th 227 (1999) ..................................................................................................... 13 23 Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 24 363 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 14 25 Malone v. Super. Ct., 226 Cal. App. 4th 1551 (2014) ........................................................................................... 17, 18 26 Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler–Plymouth, Inc., 27 473 U.S. 614 (1985) ................................................................................................................. 13 28 3 DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 1 Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc., 848 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................ 17, 18 2 Momot v. Mastro, 3 652 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................. 17, 18 Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 4 460 U.S. 1 (1983) ......................................................................................................... 12, 13, 16 5 Naria v. Trover Solutions, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .............................................................................. 13, 14 6 Plazza et al. v. Airbnb, Inc., 7 No. 16-CV-1085, 2018 WL 583122 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2018) .................................................. 7 8 Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) ............................................................................................................. 16, 17 9 Rice v. Downs, 10 248 Cal. App. 4th 175 (2016) ................................................................................................... 17 11 Rosenthal v. Great W. Fin. Sec. Corp., 14 Cal. 4th 394 (1996) .............................................................................................................. 14 12 Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC, 13 61 Cal. 4th 899 (2015) .............................................................................................................. 13 Sandquist v. Lebo Auto., Inc., 14 1 Cal. 5th 233 (2016) ................................................................................................................ 16 15 Selden v. Airbnb, Inc., No. 16-cv-00933 (CRC), 2016 WL 6476934 (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2016) ............................ 7, 15, 16 16 Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 17 175 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 1999) .............................................................................................. 16, 17 18 Swift v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 2d 904 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ...................................................................................... 15 19 Thomas v. Westlake, 20 204 Cal. App. 4th 605 (2012) ................................................................................................... 19 21 Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc., 226 Cal. App. 4th 231 (2014) ............................................................................................. 17, 18 22 Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc., 23 No. 5:13-CV-05682-LHK, 2014 WL 2903752 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2014), aff’d 840 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................................................... 15 24 Trujillo v. Gomez, 25 No. 14cv2483-BTM (BGS), 2015 WL 1757870 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2015) ............................ 13 Vernon v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., 26 857 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (D. Colo. 2012), aff’d 925 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (D. Colo. 2013) .............. 15 27 Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (1989) ................................................................................................................. 13 28 4 DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 1 Statutes 9 U.S.C. § 2 .................................................................................................................................. 13 2 9 U.S.C. § 3 .................................................................................................................................. 19 3 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 .................................................................................................... 8 4 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1280 .................................................................................................. 12, 13 5 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.2 ..................................................................................................... 12 6 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.4 ..................................................................................................... 19 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 This lawsuit cannot proceed in this forum because it is subject to mandatory, 3 contractual arbitration. Each claim asserted arises out of an accommodation booking that 4 Plaintiffs Georgia Walker and Ray Murillo (“Plaintiffs”) made through Airbnb’s online 5 platform using Plaintiff Murillo’s Airbnb account. Plaintiffs allege that their Host recorded 6 them without their consent through a camera that was hidden in a smoke detector located in the 7 accommodation. Based on this primary allegation of nonconsensual recording, Plaintiffs assert 8 eight causes of action against Airbnb that range from negligence to unfair competition. 9 As an initial matter, all of Plaintiffs’ causes of action are premised on a landlord-tenant 10 relationship and are therefore properly brought against their Host, not against Airbnb. But, 11 setting that fact aside, Plaintiffs’ relationship with Airbnb is contractual and is governed by 12 Airbnb’s Terms of Service (“TOS”), which contains an agreement to arbitrate. It is undisputed 13 that both Plaintiffs have Airbnb accounts and that both assented to the TOS when they created 14 those accounts. In fact, it is impossible to create an Airbnb account and/or book 15 accommodations through Airbnb’s online platform without first agreeing to the TOS. 16 A court is limited to two inquiries on a motion to compel arbitration: whether the 17 Plaintiffs assented to the arbitration and whether their claims fall within the scope of the 18 arbitration provision. Assent is unquestionably established here. Airbnb’s automated, 19 computerized business records confirm that Plaintiff Murillo assented to Version 5 of the TOS 20 on September 6, 2016 when he created his Airbnb account and then later assented to Version 6 21 on December 26, 2016, Version 7 on September 13, 2017, Version 8 on November 21, 2018, 22 and Version 10 on April 7, 2019. Airbnb’s business records further confirm that Plaintiff 23 Walker assented to Version 6 of the TOS on March 13, 2017 when she created her Airbnb 24 account and then later assented to Version 7 on December 28, 2017. Several courts, including 25 California courts, have unanimously agreed that Airbnb account holders affirmatively assent to 26 the TOS when they create their accounts and are therefore bound to arbitrate their claims 27 28 6 DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 1 against Airbnb.1 There are no facts that compel a different result here. 2 Once assent is established, this Court’s inquiry must end because the arbitration 3 provision contains a delegation clause that validly delegates all remaining threshold issues to 4 the arbitrator for resolution. The Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and California state courts 5 all agree that a “clear and unmistakable” delegation clause is enforceable, and the delegation 6 clause here is “clear and unmistakable.” Using express language, it delegates all issues 7 pertaining to the “breach, termination, validity, enforcement or interpretation” of the arbitration 8 provision to the arbitrator. Both federal and state courts in California have enforced delegation 9 provisions using language much less “clear and unmistakable” than the language that Plaintiffs 10 agreed to here. Accordingly, whether Plaintiffs’ particular claims fall within the scope of the 11 arbitration provision and whether any defense to arbitration exists (including 12 unconscionability) are questions that must be resolved by the arbitrator and not this Court. 13 Because assent is easily established and the delegation clause is “clear and unmistakable,” this 14 Court must compel arbitration. 15 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 16 A. Allegations of the Complaint 17 All of Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the alleged conduct of their Airbnb Host. Plaintiffs 18 allege that they booked an apartment located at 230 West Alabama Street, Unit 804, City of 19 1 20 Several courts have considered the enforceability of Airbnb’s arbitration provision and all have compelled arbitration. See Hollywood et al. v. Airbnb, Inc., L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Case 21 No. BC601165 (Apr. 20, 2016), a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exh. A to the 22 Declaration of Adrianna A. Rubino (“Rubino Decl.”); see also Stutland et al. v. Airbnb, Inc. et al., L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Case No. BC581681 (Mar. 22, 2017) at Rubino Decl., Exh. B; Fogel 23 et al. v. Hacker et al., L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Case No. BC651607 (Aug. 29, 2017) at Rubino Decl., Exh. D; Mazaheri et al. v. Bob et al., L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Case No. BC658417 (Sept. 24 21, 2017) at Rubino Decl., Exh. E; Plazza et al. v. Airbnb, Inc., Case No. 16-CV-1085, 2018 WL 583122 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2018) at Rubino Decl., Exh. F; Senders v. Airbnb, Inc. et al., 25 S.F. Super. Ct., Case No. CGC-17-561710 (Mar. 14, 2018) at Rubino Decl., Exh. G; Selden v. 26 Airbnb, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-00933 (CRC), 2016 WL 6476934 (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2016) (compelling plaintiff there to arbitrate his claims after finding that he assented to the TOS) at 27 Rubino Decl., Exh. C. This Court most recently did so in McCluskey v. Airbnb, Inc. et al., S.F. Super. Ct., Case No. CGC-18-563528 (May 30, 2018) at Rubino Decl., Exh. H; McCluskey v. 28 Henry et al., S.F. Super. Ct., Case No. CGC-18-567741 (Nov. 7, 2018) at Rubino Decl., Exh. I. 7 DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 1 Houston, County of Harris, State of Texas, from October 9, 2019 to October 11, 2019. Compl. 2 ¶¶ 19, 22. Plaintiffs’ claims are all premised on their allegation that their Host recorded them 3 without their consent through a camera that was allegedly hidden in a smoke detector. Id. ¶ 26. 4 More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they were not “inform[ed] . . . that a video camera or 5 digital audio and imaging recording device was located in the subject premises or that it was 6 being controlled from a remote location in order to observe and listen to plaintiff [sic] during 7 plaintiff’s [sic] stay within the subject premises.” Id.; see also id. ¶¶ 28, 30 (alleging after 8 “engag[ing] in highly personal matters and intimate affairs” during their stay, Plaintiffs 9 “discovered a video/digital camera disguised as a smoke detector”). 10 To remedy these issues, Plaintiffs allege they “complained to the [Host] through the 11 review of [the Host’s] Airbnb profile,” which resulted in the Host acknowledging that there 12 was a hidden camera in the accommodation, and Plaintiffs covering the lens thereof during the 13 remainder of their stay. Id. ¶ 31. Plaintiffs further allege that they complained to Airbnb about 14 the Host and the accommodation but that the accommodation is still listed on Airbnb’s 15 platform. Id. ¶¶ 31-32. 16 Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert eight causes of action against Airbnb: (1) 17 negligence, including negligence per se; (2) intrusion of privacy; (3) trespass; (4) fraud; (5) 18 negligent misrepresentation; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) negligent 19 infliction of emotional distress; and (8) violation of Business and Professions Code section 20 17200 et seq. As is evident, all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Airbnb arise out of and relate to 21 their Airbnb account and use of the Airbnb online platform and services. 22 B. The Terms of Service 23 1. The Airbnb Platform: How it Works 24 Airbnb provides an online platform that connects third-parties who wish to offer their 25 unique accommodations (called “Hosts”) with third-party travelers seeking to book 26 accommodations (called “Guests”). Declaration of Kyle Miller (“Miller Decl.”), ¶ 2. Hosts 27 are responsible for listing their accommodations on the platform, including deciding to whom, 28 when and on what material terms they offer their accommodations. Id. 8 DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 1 Airbnb does not own or control the properties listed on the platform, and Airbnb does 2 not operate, manage or otherwise have any interest in, or grant any interest in, properties that 3 Hosts list on the platform. Id. In short, Airbnb is not a landlord and does not act as one. 4 Agreements for short-term and long-term bookings are made solely between the Hosts and 5 Guests directly and Airbnb is not a party to them. Id. 6 2. Plaintiffs Assented to the TOS 7 The relationship between Airbnb and those who use its website and services is 8 governed by the TOS. Since at least 2011, it has been impossible to create an account and use 9 Airbnb’s services without first having agreed to the TOS. Miller Decl., ¶ 5. The TOS is 10 presented to users via hyperlink directly below the on-screen sign-up buttons during the 11 account registration process and then presented again every time the TOS is updated. Id. ¶¶ 7- 12 8. Airbnb captures and records the date upon which each registrant accepts the TOS in its 13 business records. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8, 10. Plaintiff Murillo assented to Version 5 of the TOS when he 14 created his account on September 6, 2016. Miller Decl., ¶¶ 11-13, Exhs. B-1 – B-5. Airbnb’s 15 business records confirm that Plaintiff Walker assented to Version 6 of the TOS when she 16 created her Airbnb account on March 13, 2017. Id. ¶¶ 18-19, Exhs. C-1 – C-4. 17 Airbnb updates its TOS from time to time. When the TOS is updated, existing account 18 holders must accept the updated Version before they can access their accounts and/or list or 19 book accommodations. Id. ¶¶ 8, 14-15, 21-22. Specifically, the first time that existing account 20 holders access the Airbnb website after a TOS update, they are presented with a pop-up screen 21 that notifies them of the nature of the update and contains either a scroll box or a hyperlink to 22 the full text of the updated TOS. Id. Account holders must click a button confirming that they 23 “agree” to the updated Terms of Service in order to continue with their search. Id. That page 24 also includes a “Disagree” button. Id. Those who click “disagree” are logged out of the 25 system. Id. Airbnb captures and records in its business records each date upon which 26 registrants accept Airbnb’s TOS, including updated versions of the TOS. Id. These records 27 confirm that Plaintiff Murillo assented to the Version 6 update on December 26, 2016, the 28 Version 7 update on September 13, 2017, the Version 8 update on November 21, 2018, and the 9 DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 1 Version 10 update on April 7, 2019, and that Plaintiff Walker assented to the Version 7 update 2 on December 28, 2017. Id. ¶¶ 14, 21, Exhs. B-3 & C-3. Accordingly, both Plaintiffs assented 3 to the TOS. See also id. ¶ 16, Exh. B-9, p. 11 (§ 8.1.3) (“If you book a Host Service on behalf 4 of additional guests, you are required to ensure that every additionally guest . . . is made aware 5 of and agrees to these Terms . . . .”). 6 3. The TOS Contains a Broad Arbitration Provision That Delegates all 7 Gateway Issues to the Arbitrator 8 The TOS applies broadly and governs all uses of Airbnb’s online platform, content and 9 services: 10 By accessing or using the Airbnb Platform, you agree to comply with and be bound by these Terms. 11 *** 12 These Terms constitute a legally binding agreement ("Agreement") between you and Airbnb (as defined below) governing your access 13 to and use of the Airbnb website, including any subdomains thereof, and any other websites through which Airbnb makes its services 14 available (collectively, "Site"), our mobile, tablet and other smart 15 device applications, and application program interfaces (collectively, "Application") and all associated services (collectively, "Airbnb 16 Services"). The Site, Application and Airbnb Services together are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Airbnb Platform.” 17 18 Miller Decl., ¶ 16, Exh. B-9, pp. 1-2 (TOS Version 10) (emphasis in original). At the very top 19 of Version 10 of the TOS is a bolded section notifying users that there is an arbitration 20 provision: 21 Please note: Section 19 of these Terms contains an arbitration clause and class action waiver that applies to all Airbnb 22 Members. If your country of residence is the United States, this provision applies to all disputes with Airbnb. If your country of 23 residence is outside of the United States, this provision applies 24 to any action you bring against Airbnb in the United States. It affects how disputes with Airbnb are resolved. By accepting 25 these Terms, you agree to be bound by this arbitration clause and class action waiver. Please read it carefully. 26 27 Id. at p. 1 (emphasis in original). “Section 19” is a hyperlink that takes the reader immediately 28 to the arbitration provision. 10 DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 1 Section 19, the arbitration provision itself, is expressly broad and governs all disputes 2 against Airbnb that arise out of or relate to any use of the Airbnb platform and services: 3 19. Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Agreement 4 19.1 This Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Agreement shall apply if your (i) country of residence . . . is in the United States . . . . 5 *** 6 19.4 Agreement to Arbitrate. You and Airbnb mutually agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating 7 to these Terms or the applicability, breach, termination, validity, 8 enforcement or interpretation thereof, or to the use of the Airbnb Platform, the Host Services, the Group Payment Service, 9 or the Collective Content (collectively, “Disputes”) will be settled by binding individual arbitration (the “Arbitration 10 Agreement”). If there is a dispute about whether this 11 Arbitration Agreement can be enforced or applies to our Dispute, you and Airbnb agree that the arbitrator will decide 12 that issue. 13 Miller Decl., ¶ 16, Exh. B-9, pp. 19-20 (TOS Version 10) (emphasis in original).2 14 The scope of the arbitration provision is broad and it expressly includes arbitration of all 15 disputes involving the “breach, termination, validity, enforcement or interpretation” of the 16 arbitration provision itself. Id. Thus, the arbitration provision expressly delegates all issues of 17 arbitrability to the arbitrator. The only claims that the arbitration agreement expressly exempts 18 are not applicable here—namely, those involving actual or threatened patent infringement, 19 misappropriation, or violation of a party’s copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, patents, or other 20 intellectual property rights. See id. at p. 20. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 2 “Collective Content” is defined as any “text, photos, audio, video, or other materials and 26 information” that Members “create, upload, post, send, receive and store” on or through the Airbnb Platform, as well as “any content that Airbnb itself makes available on or through the 27 Airbnb Platform, including proprietary Airbnb content and any content licensed or authorized for use by or through Airbnb from a third party.” Miller Decl., ¶ 16, Exh. B-9, p. 6 (TOS 28 Version 10). 11 DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 1 III. ARGUMENT 2 A. The Federal Arbitration Act Governs and Requires Arbitration 3 The arbitration provision is governed expressly by the Federal Arbitration Act 4 (“FAA”): 5 19.6 Arbitration Rules and Governing Law. This Arbitration Agreement evidences a transaction in interstate commerce and thus 6 the Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and enforcement of this provision. The arbitration will be administered 7 by AAA in accordance with the Consumer Arbitration Rules and/or 8 other AAA arbitration rules determined to be applicable by the AAA (the “AAA Rules“) then in effect, except as modified here. The 9 AAA Rules are available at www.adr.org or by calling the AAA at 1–800–778–7879. 10 11 Miller Decl., ¶ 16, Exh. B-9, p. 20 (TOS Version 10) (emphasis added). 12 As the United States Supreme Court has made clear, the FAA—and the body of federal 13 law developed pursuant to it—governs the interpretation and application of an arbitration 14 provision that is expressly subject to its provisions. DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S. Ct. 463, 15 468 (2015) (confirming parties can contractually agree to designate FAA as governing law). 16 The FAA applies equally to claims brought in state court. Id.; Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. 17 Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983) (“The basic issue presented . . . was the 18 arbitrability of the dispute . . . . Federal law in the terms of the Arbitration Act governs that 19 issue in either state or federal court.”). And, as the Supreme Court has further held, the FAA 20 preempts any inconsistent state law. DirecTV, 136 S. Ct. at 468 (holding that the Supremacy 21 Clause forbids state courts from dissociating themselves from federal law, and that as the law 22 of the United States, “the judges of every State must follow” the FAA). Accordingly, the FAA 23 and the body of federal law developed pursuant to it applies here.3 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 3 Even so, the California Arbitration Act is largely consistent with the FAA. See Cal. Civ. 28 Proc. Code § 1281.2. 12 DEFENDANT AIRBNB, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; CASE NO. CGC-20-582535 B. The Court Must Compel Arbitration of Plaintiffs’ Claims Because They 1 Assented to The TOS and the Arbitration Provision 2 Section 2 of the FAA codifies a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, making 3 arbitration provisions “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at 4 law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2; see AT&T Mobility LLC v. 5 Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339-40 (2011) (holding strong federal policy favoring arbitration 6 requires rigorous enforcement of arbitration agreements). Section 2 creates a heavy 7 presumption in favor of arbitrability that requires courts to resolve all doubt as to the scope of 8 arbitrable issues in favor of arbitration. Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 24-25 9 (holding “questions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal 10 policy favoring arbitration” and “any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should 11 be resolved in favor of arbitration”); Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland 12 Stanford Jr. Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 475 (1989) (noting “settled” rule that questions of 13 arbitrability in contracts subject to the FAA “must be resolved with a healthy regard for the 14 federal policy favoring arbitration”); Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler–Plymouth, 15