Forrest v. Verizon Communications, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a party was given “adequate notice” where they at least had the “opportunity to read” a contract clause even if they did not, in reality, read it
• holding that forum-selection clause in consumer agreement was enforceable when reasonably communicated to user, and explaining that notice need not explain “possible jurisprudential consequences of a forum selection clause”
• explaining that forum selection clauses are “prima facie valid” and will generally be enforced (quoting The Bremen v. Zapata Off–Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972))
• declining to determine the full scope 23 of the forum selection clause where the plaintiff bought a breach of contract claim
• describing an internet service contract which a consumer “entered into by the subscriber clicking an ‘Accept’ button below the scroll box”
• adopting the First Circuit rule that noncontract claims involving the same operative facts as a parallel contract claim fall within the scope of a forum selection clause in the contract

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).