Page 33 - CLT062121

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 21, 2021 ■ 33
and therefore he was subject to the exception, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
however the court found that none of plain-
tiff’s evidence showed a harm that was im-
mediate or imminent. The court granted sum- CONSUMER PROTECTION
mary judgment for governmental immunity in
favor of the defendant town.
Consumer Who Opted into Texts Not

STATE ELECTIONS ENFORCEMENT Bound by Terms and Conditions
COMMISSION CASE: Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund
Trust, Ltd.
COURT: U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit
DOC. NO.: 20-946
ELECTION AND POLITICAL LAW COURT OPINION BY: Bianco
DATE: June 08, 2021 • PAGES: 33
Plaintiff was directed by a store employee to
Commission Dismissed Complaint look at a print advertisement about signing up
Alleging Respondent Expended for Subway text messages to get a coupon. When

Municipal Funds for a Sign Promoting she tried to discontinue text messages, plaintiff
alleged defendant ignored her requests, and she
the Passing of a Referendum filed a putative class action lawsuit against de-
fendant, arguing that it violated the Telephone
CASE: In a Matter of a Complaint by Coe Consumer Protection Act. Defendant appealed
COURT: State Elections Enforcement Commission from an order denying its motion to compel ar-
DOC. NO.: 2021-059 bitration and stay the proceedings. Defendant
COURT OPINION BY: Penny
DATE: June 02, 2021 • PAGES: 4 argued that plaintiff was bound by the promo-
Complainant filed a complaint with the Com- tional program’s terms and conditions listed on
defendant’s website, claiming that terms and con-
mission, alleging that respondent Simsbury ditions were listed on the website plaintiff visited
Board of Education expended municipal funds and required arbitration of disputes. The district
for a sign promoting the passage of a refer- court denied defendant’s motion, claiming that
endum in violation of the law. On March 29, defendant had not provided plaintiff reason-
2021, respondent placed signs on the grounds ably conspicuous notice that she was agreeing to
of the public schools and other public places. the terms and conditions. On appeal, the court
The signs included a logo of a town school and agreed with the district court. The court that the
provided the link to a website that described a design and content of the print advertisement
proposed renovation project at the school and did not obviously bind plaintiff to terms and
why it was needed. On April 7, respondent was conditions because the terms and conditions
notified that the Town voted to send a question were listed on the website, and the plaintiff was
to referendum about whether to approve the al- directed from the print advertisement to visit
location of funds for the renovation project. On it. There was no evidence that plaintiff actually
April 8, respondent removed the signs and took saw the terms and conditions on the website or
the website about the renovation project offline. even visited the website. Second, the accessibility
On April 26, the Town of Simsbury noticed the of the language itself prevented reasonable no-
referendum about the renovation project. The tice. The print advertisement vaguely referenced
Commission stated that here, both the website the terms and conditions and never mentioned
and the signs were removed upon notice that the explicitly that plaintiff would be bound if she
Town had voted to send the question about the signed up for text messages. Also, the text itself
renovation budget to a referendum and before was in an incredibly small font and surrounded
the issue was noticed by the town clerk. There- by unrelated information. Looking at the total-
fore, because there was no referendum pending ity of the circumstances, the court maintained
when the website and signs were produced or that a reasonable consumer would not realize
displayed, the provisions of the relevant Gen- they were being bound to the terms and con-
eral Statutes section did not apply to those com- ditions that defendant argued were obvious.
munications and thus there were no violations. The court affirmed the district court’s decision
The Commission dismissed the complaint. and remanded.
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune