Last week, DirecTV asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to send a data privacy lawsuit that was filed against the company to arbitration. In Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 18-14832, a customer, Cordoba, filed a putative class action lawsuit against DirecTV in the Northern District of Georgia alleging the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Later, another DirecTV customer, Romero, joined in Cordoba’s complaint as a named plaintiff. When Romero became a DirecTV customer, he agreed to arbitrate all future disputes between himself and the company via a customer agreement.
Next, Romero accused DirecTV of violating the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (“STELA”) by sharing his personal information with an expert witness in the TCPA case. In response, DirecTV filed a motion to compel Romero’s STELA claims to arbitration.
In Cordoba v. DirecTV, LLC, Case No. 15-CV-3755, 2018 WL 5919588 (N.D. GA Nov. 9, 2018), the federal district court denied DirecTV’s motion to compel despite that the court determined Romero assented to the arbitration provision included in his customer agreement because the company failed to establish the man’s STELA claim arose out of his DirecTV contract.
On January 30th, DirecTV filed an appeal with the nation’s Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In DirecTV’s appellate brief, the company argues the district court committed error when it denied DirecTV’s motion to compel Romero’s STELA claims to arbitration. In addition, the company also claims the lower court’s decision went against established United States Supreme Court precedent. In the company’s brief, DirecTV states:
DIRECTV’s arbitration provision is materially identical to an arbitration provision that the U.S. Supreme Court concluded would make customers “better off * * * than they would” be “as participants in a class action.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 352 (2011).
According to DirecTV:
The question presented is whether the district court erred in holding that Romero’s arbitration agreement, which requires him to arbitrate “all disputes and claims” between him and DIRECTV, does not cover Romero’s STELA claim.
Finally, the company’s appellate brief argues, “The Court should reverse the district court’s order denying DIRECTV’s motion to compel arbitration and remand the case with instructions to grant DIRECTV’s motion.”
Please check back in the future for updates on this interesting arbitration and data privacy case!