— A Walmart lifetime tire rotation lawsuit allegedly should have never been filed because the plaintiff allegedly agreed to arbitrate any disputes when he purchased the tires and lifetime tire rotation and balancing plan.
The plaintiff who sued alleges he ordered a set of tires for $122.45 per tire from Walmart's website in July 2018. He had the tires installed at a Texas Walmart and purchased the lifetime tire rotation and balancing plan.
The lawsuit alleges Walmart “promises to provide tire balancing and rotation services every 7,500 miles for the life of qualified tires from the original purchase date.”
The plaintiff says he obtained tire rotation and balancing services in 2019 but was denied the services in 2020 due to safety protocols Walmart created due to the COVID-19 virus.
The lifetime tire rotation lawsuit alleges Walmart Auto Care Centers were closed in March 2020 which prevented customers from receiving tire services guaranteed by the lifetime agreement.
"Our people are working hard to have every part of the store ready to serve customers. To help support our people and focus on the most critical areas of the store right now, we will temporarily shut down our Auto Care Centers to allow those associates to focus on stocking and cleaning in the rest of the store." — Walmart website statement posted March 18, 2020
According to the plaintiff, Walmart's advertising concerning lifetime tire rotations was misleading and false and all consumers who purchased the tire rotation and balancing services have suffered damages.
The Walmart class action lawsuit argues consumers purchased plans for lifetime tire rotation and balancing services, then Walmart didn't honor the plans.
Walmart filed a motion to compel arbitration by telling the judge the lifetime tire rotation lawsuit allegations have no merit, but the class action allegedly shouldn't have ever been filed in the first place.
According to Walmart, when the plaintiff ordered tires on Walmart's website, he agreed to be bound by Walmart’s Terms of Use which means he agreed any dispute should be resolved by an arbitrator, not a court.
Attorneys for Walmart say the Terms of Use contain the binding arbitration clause which applies to, “ALL DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO … ANY ASPECT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOU AND WALMART.”
Walmart further argues the Terms of Use in effect at the time the plaintiff made his July 2018 purchase begin by putting individuals on notice of the arbitration clause through an "explicit statement" which says:
“NEW: Please review these Updated Terms of Use (effective 11/28/2017) carefully. They include a binding arbitration clause (see Section 20) requiring you and us to arbitrate our claims instead of suing in court…”
"In this case, Plaintiff affirmatively manifested his assent to the Terms of Use when he clicked the 'Place Order' button to complete his purchase. Faced with materially similar facts, courts within the Ninth Circuit have routinely held that customers who clicked similar buttons acknowledging their agreement to terms of use during an online ordering process consented to—and were bound by—those terms." — Walmart
Because the plaintiff is allegedly bound by the Terms of Use, Walmart says the judge should compel the customer to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis. In addition, Walmart says the judge should dismiss the lifetime tire rotation lawsuit or stay it pending the outcome of any arbitration proceeding.
The Walmart lifetime tire rotation lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California: Johnson, et al., v. Walmart, Inc.
The plaintiff is represented by Yoon Law, APC.
