In In Re Zappos.com Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, the case in the text in which customers of Zappos claimed that they were not bound to an arbitration agreement contained in a contract with Zappos, what was the result of the case?
A) The court ruled for the plaintiffs for the following two reasons: (1) there was no contract because the plaintiffs did not assent to it, and (2) even if a contract existed, the contract was illusory and unenforceable because Zappos could avoid promises at any time.
B) The court ruled for the plaintiffs only because of its finding that no contract existed based on the plaintiffs' lack of assent.
C) The court ruled for the plaintiffs only because of its finding that the contract was illusory and unenforceable because Zappos could avoid promises at any time.
D) The court ruled in favor of Zappos on the basis that even though some provisions of the contract were unenforceable, because of the federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, the arbitration clause itself was enforceable.
E) The court ruled in favor of Zappos on the basis that the contract was properly entered into and was fully enforceable.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court ruled for the plaintiffs, finding that there was no contract due to lack of assent by the plaintiffs, and even if there was a contract, it was considered illusory and unenforceable because Zappos could unilaterally change the terms.

In in Re Zappos