Docket No. 77406-4  Facts:  Alleging that respondent Cingular Wireless overcharged its customers by unlawfully adding hidden charges, a group of customers led by petitioner Doug Scott initiated a class action against Cingular Wireless.  The trial court granted Cingular Wireless’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to a clause in its standard subscriber contract.  Continue reading →

Docket No. 77101-4  Facts:  Respondent Suzy Dix and other subscribers to America Online’s internet service filed a class action in the state of Washington against I.C.T. Group, Inc., asserting that I.C.T. Group, which is responsible for handling customer service inquiries for America Online, engaged in deceptive practices in violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (Washington Revised Code §19.86).  The trial court dismissed the class action on grounds that the forum selection clause in America Online’s service agreement requires that any claims arising from customers’ use of the service be brought in Virginia.  Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the forum selection clause is unenforceable insofar as the selected forum of Virginia does not permit class actions, rendering the forum selection clause contrary to the public policy underlying the Consumer Protection Act. Continue reading →

Docket No. 76719-0 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 51452-1)  Synopsis: Are the arbitration provisions in Regence’s agreements with these health care providers enforceable? Continue reading →