[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-305701-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-305701-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","usca11-case-18-14019-appeal-decision","USCA11 Case - 18-14019 - Appeal Decision","","US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addresses an interlocutory appeal involving whether borrowers agreed to arbitration provisions contained in online credit card arrangements. The court reviews claims that Carter Mason and Anita Burnett accepted clickwrap-type terms and received card agreements, including an arbitration clause. The panel finds sufficient evidence for Burnett’s receipt and assent, but concludes defendants failed to show Mason ever received or knew of the arbitration agreement. The decision affirms denial to Mason and reverses as to Burnett.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/usca11-case-18-14019-appeal-decision/305701/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/usca11-case-18-14019-appeal-decision/305701.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Jordan Avery","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-07","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What issue does the Eleventh Circuit address in this appeal?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Whether defendants provided evidence that Carter Mason and Anita Burnett agreed to arbitration based on the credit account agreements presented through online processes and related card agreements.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why did the court reverse the district court’s ruling for Burnett?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The panel concluded defendants made a satisfactory showing that Burnett received and agreed to the arbitration agreement.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why was the district court’s denial of arbitration affirmed for Mason?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The evidence did not establish that Mason ever received or knew of the arbitration agreement, so the arbitration denial as to Mason was upheld.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},305701,1790726387,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,114,118,122],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":110,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":115,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":121},21,"Paper Templates","papers-templates",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":127},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":119,"language":135,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":139,"read_time":140},1099523882367,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","USCA11 Case: 18-14019 Date Filed: 05/13/2020 Page: 1 of 21  \n[DO NOT PUBLISH]  \nIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS  \nFOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT  \nNo. 18-14019  \nD.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-02867-LMM-RGV  \nCARTER MASON, ANITA BURNETT,  \nPlaintiffs-Appellees,  \nversus  \nMIDLAND FUNDING LLC,  \nENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., COOLING & WINTER, LLC,  \nASSET ACCEPTANCE CAPITAL CORP., ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, FREDERICK J. HANNA,  \nJOSEPH C. COOLING, ROBERT A. WINTER,  \nDefendants-Appellants.  \nAppeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia  \n(May 13, 2020)  \nUSCA11 Case: 18-14019 Date Filed: 05/13/2020 Page: 2 of 21  \nBefore ED CARNES, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge, and VINSON, ∗ District Judge.  \nPER CURIAM:  \nAs we all know from experience, companies often enclose contracts and terms of use inside the packaging of products we buy at the store. Courts have generally approved the use of these so-called “shrink wrap” agreements because they put consumers on notice that by using the product, they are agreeing to certain contractual terms.  \nThe age of the internet has brought with it the modern corollary of the shrink wrap agreement, the clickwrap agreement—an agreement that a consumer using theseller’s website must review and accept before making an online purchase. Courts have also largely approved the use of clickwrap agreements for the same basic reason that they have approved the use of shrink wrap agreements: the consumer is on notice that an agreement exists and receives the opportunity to review the terms of that agreement and to consent.  \nBut of course, courts’ acceptance of these types of agreements contemplates that the promoters of the clickwrap agreement can demonstrate that the alleged acceptor, in fact, either digitally or by paper, received a copy of the agreement at  \n∗ Honorable C. Roger Vinson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.  \nUSCA11 Case: 18-14019 Date Filed: 05/13/2020 Page: 3 of 21  \nissue. In this case, whether the plaintiffs did, in fact, receive a copy of the agreements the defendants seek to hold them to is what’s at issue.  \nHere, the defendants 1 seek to hold Plaintiffs Carter Mason and Anita Burnett (formerly Anita Pfister) to arbitration agreements that the defendants claim Mason and Burnett agreed to when they obtained credit accounts online. After careful consideration, we conclude that the defendants have made a satisfactory showing that Burnett received and agreed to the arbitration agreement. But the defendants’evidence does not establish that Mason ever received or knew of the arbitration agreement. For that reason, we affirm the district court’s denial of the defendants’motion to compel arbitration as it relates to Mason, but we reverse as it regards Burnett.  \nI.  \nOn August 11, 2013, Mason applied online for a Fingerhut-branded creditcard account originated by WebBank. Blue Stem Brands, Inc., acted as the servicerand custodian of records for that account.  \nThe defendants claim that as part of opening that account, Mason became subject to a card agreement that requires him to arbitrate any dispute arising out of the agreement or credit relationship (the “Mason Card Agreement”) . That is so,  \n1 The defendants are Encore, four of its wholly owned subsidiaries, a law firm, Cooling and Winter LLC, and three attorneys.  \nUSCA11 Case: 18-14019 Date Filed: 05/13/2020 Page: 4 of 21  \naccording to defendants, because the online application through which Mason applied for the card allegedly required him to accept terms and conditions that contained an arbitration agreement. And then, defendants assert, Mason was mailed a Welcome Packet containing the Mason Card Agreement, along with the credit card. After Mason received the credit card, he used it.  \nWhen Mason failed to make any payments due on the account, the then-owner of the debt filed a statement of claim against Mason. ","cbCaiil06WYJiDZx","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiil06WYJiDZx","pdf",174184,"English","# Background\n# Arbitration Agreement Dispute\n# Evidence Regarding Burnett\n# Evidence Regarding Mason\n# Procedural Posture and Ruling","[{\"question\":\"What issue does the Eleventh Circuit address in this appeal?\",\"answer\":\"Whether defendants provided evidence that Carter Mason and Anita Burnett agreed to arbitration based on the credit account agreements presented through online processes and related card agreements.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the court reverse the district court’s ruling for Burnett?\",\"answer\":\"The panel concluded defendants made a satisfactory showing that Burnett received and agreed to the arbitration agreement.\"},{\"question\":\"Why was the district court’s denial of arbitration affirmed for Mason?\",\"answer\":\"The evidence did not establish that Mason ever received or knew of the arbitration agreement, so the arbitration denial as to Mason was upheld.\"}]","USCA11 Case - 18-14019 - Appeal Decision | PDF",1789827336,7]