No. 11-6233 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT GAYEN HANCOCK, et al., Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from Orders of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, The Honorable Lee R. West, No. 5:10-CV-00822-W BRIEF OF APPELLEES Curtis Long Evan M. Tager FELLERS, SNIDER, BLANKENSHIP, Archis A. Parasharami BAILEY & TIPPENS Theodore J. Weiman 321 South Boston, Suite 800 MAYER BROWN LLP Tulsa, OK 74103-0621 1999 K Street, N.W. Telephone: (918) 925-5848 Washington, DC 20006 Facsimile: (918) 583-9659 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 Facsimile: (202) 263-3300 J. Henry Walker, IV Cindy D. Hanson John P. Jett KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4528 Telephone: (404) 815-6500 Facsimile: (404) 815-6555 Attorneys for Appellees APPELLEES DO NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AT&T Operations, Inc. is a non-governmental corporate entity whose assets and liabilities were transferred to a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Operations Inc., which in turn merged into AT&T Services, Inc. as a result of a corporate reorganization effective December 31, 2010. AT&T Services, Inc., the successor to AT&T Operations, Inc., is a non-governmental corporate entity that is jointly owned by AT&T Inc. and other wholly-owned subsidiaries of AT&T Inc. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company is a non-governmental corporate entity and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southwestern Bell Texas Holdings, Inc., which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Inc. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. is a non-governmental corporate entity and a wholly-owned subsidiary of BellSouth Corp., which in turn is a wholly- owned subsidiary of AT&T Inc. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc., Michigan Bell Telephone Co., Nevada Bell Telephone Co., Ohio Bell Telephone Co., Pacific Bell Telephone Co., Wisconsin Bell, Inc., and the Southern New England Telephone Co. are non-governmental corporate entities and wholly-owned subsidiaries of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Inc. AT&T Inc. is a publicly held corporation and the only publicly held company with a 10 percent or greater ownership stake in the defendants listed i above. American Telephone & Telegraph Company, Inc. does not exist, and AT&T Southeast, Inc. was dissolved on March 24, 1993. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ..........................................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................v STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES.....................................................................x INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1 ISSUE PRESENTED.................................................................................................2 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................2 A. AT&T U-verse Customers Obtain Bundled Services By Accepting Separate Sets Of Terms And Conditions Governing The Respective Services. ....................................................2 B. Plaintiffs File Suit In The U.S. District Court For The Western District Of Oklahoma..............................................................5 C. AT&T Presents Both Customer-Specific And Custom-And-Practice Evidence Showing That Each Plaintiff Assented To Both Sets Of Terms............................................8 D. Plaintiffs’ Response.............................................................................11 E. The District Court’s Rulings. ..............................................................12 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................................14 ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................15 I. THE PROCESS BY WHICH PLAINTIFFS ASSENTED TO THE U-VERSE SERVICE AGREEMENTS CREATED ENFORCEABLE CONTRACTS..................................................................16 A. Standard Of Review. ...........................................................................17 B. The U-verse Contracting Process Involves Simple, Streamlined Transactions That Create Enforceable Clickwrap Agreements........................................................................17 C. Plaintiffs’ Attacks On Their Agreements Rest On Mischaracterizations Of The Contracting Process..............................21 D. The Remaining Aspects Of The U-verse Contracting Process That Plaintiffs Challenge Are Unobjectionable............................................................................24 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page II. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT PLAINTIFFS ASSENTED TO THE SEPARATE INTERNET AND TV/VOICE TERMS BASED ON THE UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY AT&T..................28 A. Standard Of Review. ...........................................................................29 B. Plaintiffs Had The Burden Of Raising A Genuine Issue Of Material Fact In The District Court. .....................................30 C. Plaintiffs Failed To Carry Their Burden. ............................................32 D. Plaintiffs Again Manifested Assent To Their Contracts By Continuing To Receive Internet And TV/Voice Services. .....................................................................35 E. Plaintiffs’ Contention That The District Court Afforded Undue Weight To AT&T’s Evidence Is Meritless..............38 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................41 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Adams v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 888 F.2d 696 (10th Cir. 1989) ....................................................17, 25, 27, 33, 35 Addison v. Carballosa, 48 So. 3d 951 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)............................................................26 Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................33 Aliaga v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3290099 (D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2006) ........................................................40 Avedon Eng’g, Inc. v. Seatex, 126 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 1997) ....................................................................29, 31 Avila v. Jostens, Inc., 316 F. App’x 826 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished)..............................................29 Blashka v. Greenway Capital Corp., 1995 WL 608284 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 1995).......................................................41 Brennan v. Global Safety Labs, Inc., 2008 WL 2234830 (N.D. Okla. May 29, 2008) .................................................25 Carson v. Spinozzi, 2011 WL 5588932 (4th Cir. Nov. 17, 2011) (unpublished)...............................18 Citicorp Real Estate, Inc. v. Ameripalms 6B GP, Inc., 633 So. 2d 47 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)............................................................26 CitiFinancial Mortg. Co. v. Frasure, 2008 WL 2199496 (N.D. Okla. May 23, 2008) .................................................25 Colony Ins. Co. v. G&E Tires & Serv., Inc., 777 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)........................................................36 Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Jabush, 89 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1996) ...........................................................................31, 32 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Edwards v. Blockbuster Inc., 400 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (E.D. Okla. 2005)............................................................40 Emerald Grande, Inc. v. Junkin, 2008 WL 2776229 (N.D. Fla. July 15, 2008).....................................................26 First Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Stinchcomb, 734 P.2d 852 (Okla. Ct. App. 1987)...................................................................27 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) ..........................................................................35 Hardin v. First Case Fin. Servs., Inc., 465 F.3d 470 (10th Cir. 2006) ......................................................................32, 36 Harvell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 164 P.3d 1028 (Okla. 2006)................................................................................19 Highland Crossing, L.P. v. Ken Laster Co., 242 P.3d 567 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010).................................................................26 Hugger-Mugger, L.L.C. v. Netsuite, Inc., 2005 WL 2206128 (D. Utah. Sept. 12, 2005)...............................................30, 31 Jones v. KP&H LLC, 288 F. App’x 464 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished)..............................................29 Jones v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2012 WL 689269 (10th Cir. Mar. 5, 2012) ........................................................17 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Lott, 2007 WL 30271 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 3, 2007) .........................................................40 Koch v. Koch, 903 F.2d 1333 (10th Cir. 1990) ....................................................................14, 25 Langley v. Prudential Mortg. Capital Co., 546 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2008) ..............................................................................25 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Leatherwood v. Cardservice Int’l, Inc., 929 So. 2d 616 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)..........................................................19