## Facts

- Dean Nicosia bought a weight-loss product, “1 Day Diet,” through Amazon.com on January 30, 2013 and April 19, 2013.
- Nicosia alleged the product contained sibutramine and that Amazon’s sale violated the Consumer Product Safety Act and state law.
- The purchases were made using an Amazon account in Nicosia’s wife’s name.
- The wife’s account had been enrolled in Amazon Mom, which required acceptance of Amazon Prime Terms and Conditions incorporating an arbitration clause for disputes related to Amazon services.
- An earlier dismissal based on arbitration tied to Amazon’s website “Conditions of Use” was vacated on appeal because Amazon had not shown Nicosia was on inquiry notice of arbitration through the checkout flow; the case returned to the district court.
- On remand, Amazon moved to compel arbitration based on the Amazon Mom/Prime enrollment terms accepted for the wife’s account, contending Nicosia was bound as a user of that account.

## Issues

1. Whether a nonsignatory who used a spouse’s Amazon account that accepted Prime terms containing an arbitration clause could be compelled to arbitrate claims arising from purchases made through that account.
2. Whether equitable estoppel and related New York contract/agency principles permitted enforcement of the arbitration clause against the nonsignatory where the claims were intertwined with the account’s contractual relationship.
3. Whether Amazon waived arbitration by prior litigation conduct, including earlier motions practice.

## Decision

- The court granted Amazon’s motion to compel arbitration.
- The court held Nicosia was bound by the account’s arbitration agreement through equitable estoppel and implied assent based on his use and benefit of the account governed by those terms.
- The court rejected Nicosia’s waiver argument, finding Amazon had not intentionally relinquished its arbitration right.
- The court dismissed the action in favor of arbitration.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to compel arbitration, the court assesses whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to the existence of an agreement to arbitrate under a summary-judgment-like standard.
- An arbitration clause accepted during online enrollment can govern later disputes arising from use of the associated account and services.
- Under New York law, a nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate via equitable estoppel when the nonsignatory knowingly uses and benefits from an agreement containing an arbitration clause and asserts claims intertwined with the contractual relationship.
- Prior litigation does not constitute waiver of arbitration absent intentional relinquishment; delay attributable to procedural history or changed theory, without prejudice-based showing, may not support waiver.

## Conclusion

The court compelled arbitration and dismissed the case, holding that a spouse’s use of an Amazon account subject to Prime terms could bind the user to arbitration through equitable estoppel and implied assent, and that Amazon had not waived its right to arbitrate.


Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 384 F. Supp. 3d 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)