The district court held that the binding arbitration provision relied upon by 24 Hour Fitness is illusory because 24 Hour Fitness “retain[ed] the unilateral right to modify or terminate the arbitration provision” at any time. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM.
In a 2007 blog post (here) I noted the problem with unilaterally amending the terms of a “virtual attachment” to a contract. That blog post dealt with online terms of service mentioned in a contract. By contrast, Carey concerns an employee handbook that provided for arbitration; the plaintiff employee had signed an “acknowledgment” stating that the company was free to amend the handbook. But the same logic applies.
This issue isn’t central to what I do, and others have devoted much thought and many words to it. They might want to add this case to the mix.