After buying from a brick &amp; mortar shop they&#39;ve contacted me to say buying things from them is consent to arbitration. Is this legal?
<p>A few days ago I bought over-the-counter goods from a shop. There was <em>no signature</em> involved in this purchase. I walked up to the counter with off-the-shelf items, was asked for a phone number, paid in cash, then left. They just sent a text message claiming that buying anything from them constitutes waiver of right to sue them and consent to binding arbitration. <strong>Is the shop violating any law?</strong></p>
<p>The shop was in Ohio, United States of America.</p>

<p>They cannot force a contract on you after the fact.</p>
<p>You should leave these numbskulls alone, they are clearly up to something that makes them likely to be sued.</p>
<p>I am adding the following:  it's not illegal as far as I know to declare anything you want to a person as long as it isn't a threat.  &quot;You are now beholden to give me your firstborn makle child.&quot;  lol, no.</p>

<p>Technically speaking, it's not illegal: spontaneously making a false statement to someone does not fall under any of Ohio's laws regarding fraud or the like.</p>
<p>It also doesn't have any legal effect.  You can't retroactively change the terms of a deal; if they didn't tell you about an arbitration requirement at the time you made the purchase, there is no arbitration requirement (and the burden of proof here is on them, not you).</p>

<p>Did you sign anything? If you signed any kind of document the arbitration clause was probably in it and you didn't see it. And yes, it is legal to have a simple &quot;You agree to arbitration&quot; etc type of statement.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract
evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a
controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, or
the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement
in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising
out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law
or in equity for the revocation of any contract or as otherwise
provided in chapter 4.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/2</a></p>
<p>I'm guessing they just sent the text as a reminder.</p>

<p>Just to add another possible scenario to the above answers, it is possible to agree to a contract through conduct other than the more traditional actions such as saying &quot;I agree&quot; or signing a written contract.</p>
<p>For example, the shop could hypothetically have a (prominent and clear) sign at the entrance which says &quot;<em>By purchasing something from this shop, you agree to the following conditions: [...]</em>&quot;. This is the mechanism by which for example you agree to pay parking charges when you enter a car park.</p>
<p>As for whether this is illegal, in <a href="/questions/tagged/england-and-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" rel="tag">england-and-wales</a>, this could amount to fraud depending on the intent behind it e.g. if they know that it is false (i.e. that you are not in fact bound by this term) and they intend to dissuade you from taking potential lawsuits. <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Fraud Act 2006, Sections 2 and 5</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>2</strong> Fraud by false representation</p>
<p>(1) A person is in breach of this section if he — (a) dishonestly
makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the
representation - (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to
cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.</p>
<p>(2)A representation is false if - (a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or
misleading.</p>
<p><strong>5</strong> (3) “Gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one does not have.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is a complicated question. It would be a pretty clear unfair business practices in California, and the similar statute in Ohio per Section 1345.02 (A) (10) which provides that it is an unfair act or practice</p>
<p>&quot;That a consumer transaction involves or does not involve a warranty, a disclaimer of warranties or other rights, remedies, or obligations if the representation is false.&quot;</p>
<p>To sue is a pretty clear remedy which is implied and imposed by the operation of law. Now, if they want to deprive you of this &quot;remed[y]&quot;, they must state that clearly prior to the transaction.</p>
<p>Hence, post-transaction reneging on a warranty, remedy, obligation or other right is clearly an unfair business practice. This means, the illegal, invalid or unenforceable arbitration &quot;provision&quot; is just that: An illegal, invalid or unenforceable arbitration provision.</p>
<p>This may give a personal cause of action if there is any damage beyond trifle. Say, you fail to meet the statute of limitation as a result of the willful or reckless false statement designed to deceive.</p>
<p>Also, it may, in fact, be a cause of action on the basis of fraud. Even criminal statutes on the construction of &quot;property&quot; in property crimes are much broader than we think of them in everyday life. Say, a right to an appeal, to a PIN code or an administrative complaint may be &quot;property&quot; for the purposes of extortion laws in California (see generally, for e.g., <em>People v. Fisher</em> (2013) <a href="https://casetext.com/case/people-v-fisher-303#p217" rel="nofollow noreferrer">216 Cal.App.4th 212, 217, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 836</a>). Similarly in California. And it is a distinction without a difference whether or not the conversion of the property (within the meaning of even the generally strictly construed criminal statutes) is brought about by &quot;consent&quot; compelled by fear such as will constitute extortion or &quot;consent&quot; obtained by false premise.</p>
<p>Surrendering, forfeiting or otherwise giving up the right to a statutory remedy as a result of such a deceptive text message should render the right to sue &quot;property&quot; for the purposes of conversion at least in a civil cause of action, and the action a matter of civil fraud.</p>
<p>Now, of course, this would heavily rely on Ohio case law, and possibly would require Ohio courts to look at other states cases to a case on point, but the theory is clear.</p>
<p>Whether or not successful, would depend on the facts. (Was deception succesful? Was any cause of action actually more than mere possibility? etc.)</p>

united-states contract-law consumer-protection ohio arbitration