SEATTLE — U.S. District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson denied Angi Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action alleging unwanted commercial texts, ruling that genuine factual disputes over whether the plaintiff ever used the platform must be resolved through discovery.
Randall Lowell, the plaintiff in the case, sued Angi Inc., the company that operates angi.com, alleging the platform violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Washington state laws by initiating or assisting in the transmission of unwanted commercial text messages and phone calls.
Angi moved to compel arbitration, arguing that Lowell consented to a binding arbitration agreement when he submitted service requests through the company’s mobile application. The motion relied on a declaration by Joseph Puccio, Angi’s Senior Vice President of Product Management, who stated that Angi’s records showed Lowell visited the website and made service requests, thereby accepting the company’s terms.
Attached to Puccio’s declaration were printouts of service requests listing Lowell’s name, email, physical address, and phone number, along with descriptions of tasks such as repairing asphalt, painting, repairing a gas furnace, and replacing siding.
Puccio stated that Angi’s system generates a service request only after a consumer affirmatively consents to the terms. To create a request, a consumer must click a “View Matching Pros” button, which triggers a disclosure stating: “By clicking View Matching Pros, I agree to Angi’s Terms and Privacy Policy, and that Angi and its service professionals, or parties acting on their behalf, may use automated technology and prerecorded messages to deliver marketing calls or texts regarding my project and future projects to the number I provided. Consent is not a condition of service.”
Lowell denied ever using Angi’s platform or submitting the requests. In his own declaration, Lowell stated he has never used Angi’s List, downloaded the mobile app, or used the website to submit a service request. He claimed he does not recall ever visiting Angi’s website and had never seen the terms until reviewing Puccio’s declaration during litigation.
Lowell specifically contested the dozen service requests attached to Puccio’s declaration, attaching records he claimed showed he was engaged in other activities when many of the services were requested. He disputed requests for repairs to a gas furnace or landscaping, noting he does not own a gas furnace and does not live associated with the landscaping request.
Lowell also submitted a screenshot of his email inbox from one relevant time period, claiming he was “engaged in a series of nonstop emails and back-to-back phone calls with attorneys and experts about a friend’s wrongful death suit” when one of the service requests was made. He further claimed he was driving in traffic or at a coffee shop of two other requests, and that he sent a business email time another request was submitted.
Evanson ruled that the parties genuinely dispute whether Lowell, or someone else, made the service requests. She noted that Lowell’s sworn declaration presents specific facts and evidence to support his contention that he did not submit the requests.
“Drawing all inferences in Lowell’s favor, as the Court must at this stage, a reasonable factfinder could determine on this record that Lowell did not submit the service requests and thus did not consent to Angi’s terms,” Evanson wrote.
Because Angi has not yet carried its burden to show mutual assent to an arbitration agreement, the court directed the parties to proceed to discovery on the issue of arbitrability. Angi may renew its motion to compel after completing this limited discovery, or the parties may proceed to a jury trial on the issue of arbitrability if necessary.
Evanson ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint status report by May 27, 2026, proposing a schedule for completing discovery into arbitrability and a deadline for Angi to file any renewed motion to compel arbitration.
The court also stayed Angi’s motions to dismiss the TCPA claims and to strike the Complaint’s class action allegations, directing the Clerk to terminate them without prejudice to being reinstated the case does not proceed to arbitration.