Trade Law Daily is a Warren News publication.

Hallmark Moves to Compel TCPA Plaintiff to Individual Arbitration

Defendant Hallmark Cards seeks an order compelling plaintiff James Williams’ Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims to individual arbitration (see 2210260054), or alternatively to strike his class allegations, said Hallmark’s motion Friday (docket 3:22-cv-01340). Williams voluntarily enrolled in Hallmark’s Crown Rewards…

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.

loyalty program and agreed to the arbitration agreement, the company said in U.S. District Court for Connecticut in New Haven. Williams made numerous purchases at Hallmark stores, “and consented to receive the very text messages that form the basis of his claim,” it said. Williams' claim in New Haven federal court is “procedurally improper because, at the time he enrolled to receive text messages from Hallmark, he also agreed to a mandatory and binding arbitration provision that explicitly applies to the very claim he asserts here,” it said. In seeking alternatively to strike Williams’ class allegations, Hallmark argues he's “not a member of the class he seeks to represent because he consented to receive text messages from Hallmark,” it said. Though Williams claims otherwise, and alleges he continued to receive text messages after he texted “Stop,” Hallmark’s records “contradict these allegations,” it said. Hallmark isn’t asking the court to resolve these factual disputes on this motion, but rather to strike the class allegations, it said. At a minimum, Williams “will be the subject of unique defenses that preclude his ability to represent a class in this action and will be unable to satisfy Rule 23’s predominance requirement,” it said.