Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Pennsylvania newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (January 26, 2021, 4:13 PM EST) -- A Pittsburgh man's proposed class action over sales tax applied to protective masks by Amazon should be resolved through arbitration, the e-commerce giant told a Pennsylvania federal court Monday.
By purchasing a mask through Amazon's website, plaintiff Vince Ranalli agreed to the retailer's conditions of use, the motion says. Those conditions say a customer will resolve any dispute regarding the company or a product purchased through Amazon through arbitration on an individual basis, not through a class action. The protective masks are used mostly for protection against COVID-19.
Amazon asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to compel the suit to arbitration and stay or dismiss the complaint. The conditions of use have been about the same since 2011, and Ranalli has made more than 200 purchases from the website, the motion says. By clicking the "Place Order" button, he accepts the conditions, including the arbitration process for disputes.
The motion says the conditions of use are also applied when a user logs into the site under an account. Links to the full list of conditions are available at the log-in and order screens, and arbitration language is prominently displayed on that list. Additionally, the motion says, any question of whether Ranalli's claims should be decided through arbitration can only be resolved by the arbiter.
"In sum, Ranalli's agreement to arbitrate his claims ... requires him to arbitrate both the merits of his claims and any objections regarding the scope and enforceability of the arbitration provision itself," the motion says. "The court should grant Amazon's motion on this basis alone."
Attorneys representing Amazon did not return a request for comment Tuesday.
Amazon's response comes days after Ranalli's initial complaint was moved to federal court from the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. He seeks to represent a class of Pennsylvania consumers who purchased protective masks during the COVID-19 pandemic and were charged sales tax by online merchants.
According to the complaint, Ranalli bought masks from several outlets, including Amazon, Etsy, Zazzle and Brave New Look. Each time, he was charged a sales tax that he says violates state law. The complaint claims protective masks are nontaxable because they are medical supplies. Additionally, Gov. Tom Wolf's state of emergency declaration in March said any nonmedical masks previously subject to sales tax were now exempt, according to the complaint.
The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act.
Ranalli's attorney did not return a request for comment.
Ranalli is represented by Joshua P. Ward and Kyle Steenland of The Law Firm of Fenters Ward.
Amazon is represented by James L. Rockney and Brian Phelps of Reed Smith LLP.
The case is Vince Ranalli v. Amazon.com LLC et al., case number 2:21-cv-00088, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
--Editing by Alyssa Miller.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
