Verizon store
A federal judge will let Verizon disconnect a class action accusing the company of improperly recording and storing their voices, as the judge determined an arbitration provision in Verizon's customer agreement also applies to claims filed under Illinois' biometrics privacy law.
Thelton Parker Jr. and Steven Doyle sued the telecom giant in September 2024, alleging collection of customer “voiceprints” outside the parameters of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, Verizon deployed a Voice ID service in 2021 as a means of letting customers authenticate their identity but didn’t comply with BIPA requirements on informed consent for collection, use and storage of such information.
In an opinion filed May 30, U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso granted Verizon’s motion to send the matter to arbitration.
Parker said he started used Verizon in early 2022 while Doyle had been a customer since 2019. According to Alonso, both men signed a service customer receipt, which included a clause that said, “I have read and agree to the Verizon Customer Agreement and Verizon Privacy Policy, including settlement of dispute by arbitration instead of jury trial.”
Although the customers didn’t dispute the existence of that clause or the clarity of the language, they did argue the agreement doesn’t cover their BIPA allegations and is unconscionable to the degree a judge could void the terms.
“Plaintiffs argue that they have not agreed to arbitrate claims relating to Voice ID because Voice ID is not explicitly referenced in the customer agreement,” Alonso wrote, “and while the accompanying privacy policy listed certain states’ privacy statutes, it did not reference BIPA.”
However, Alonso noted, the contract also included a delegation provision that sends the very question of whether a dispute was arbitrable to an arbitrator. Parker and Doyle argued that provision itself was unconscionable on substantive and procedural grounds, but Alonso rejected both contentions.
“A lack of bargaining power and the fact a contract is one of adhesion cannot alone create procedural unconscionability,” Alonso wrote, noting the complaint alleged the actual agreement terms were provided only through a written web address, not an active link. But he said that allegation doesn’t rise beyond “some difficulty in accessing the terms” and can’t invalidate the procedure.
In terms of the substance of the contract, Alonso rejected concerns about the ability for Verizon to keep seeking arbitrators until it found one to claim the dispute wasn’t suitable for court.
“Plaintiffs’ concerns are unfounded,” Alonso wrote. “First, the provision speaks to the AAA —defined elsewhere as the American Arbitration Association — refusing to enforce a provision of the agreement, not an individual arbitrator before the AAA. As such, if the AAA makes no decision regarding the enforceability of a provision of the arbitration agreement, this provision will not be triggered, even if an AAA arbitrator declines to enforce a provision of the arbitration agreement. If the AAA itself declines to enforce a part of the arbitration agreement, the parties ‘will select another arbitrator.’ While the provision does not make clear that the new arbitrator will not be before the AAA, that is the only logical outcome if the AAA has already declined to enforce a provision of the arbitration agreement.”
Alonso also rejected an argument about a class action waiver in the arbitration agreement, finding that even if it were unconscionable, it wouldn’t supersede the delegation provision at issue. He likewise disregarded an argument about a mass arbitration provision — applicable if 50 customers attempt to raise similar issues — finding it irrelevant under Illinois law.
With the complaint sent to arbitration, Alonso stated the suit and denied as moot Verizon’s motion to dismiss. He ordered a joint status report due Aug. 28.
The plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorney Alexander M. Peraza and others with the firms of Loevy & Loevy, of Chicago; Levin Law, of Miami; and Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, of Miami.
Verizon is represented by attorney Steven L. Baron, of Baron Harris Healey, of Chicago; and attorneys with the firm of Hunton Andrews Kurth, of Los Angeles and Dallas.
