US Court refuses to compel arbitration based on a third party’s website clause used to book a SIXT rental car

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in a recent decision refused to compel arbitration in a putative class action based on a clause the plaintiff agreed to on a third party’s website used to book a rental car from the defendant, SIXT.

In February 2019, one of the plaintiffs, Ancizar Marin, reserved and rented a car from Sixt online through third-party To complete the reservation, Marin clicked a fairly sizeable red button with the following statement: “By selecting to complete this booking, I acknowledge that I have read and accepted the Rules & Restrictions, Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Government Travel Advice.” The Terms of Use included a submission to an arbitration clause.

Mainly, the Decision considers that Sixt cannot enforce the arbitration clause for a straightforward reason: It is not a party to the contract as the Terms of Use is a contract between the customer making the reservation (Marin) and Orbitz, not Sixt. Moreover, According to the Court, Sixt would not fit under the term “suppliers” to be considered a third-party beneficiary.

The decision can be found here: (subir

Por Josep Gálvez, Socio, Barrister y Abogado

Scroll to Top