Katzeff v. Toyota of Dartmouth: Shopping for a Camry Online Can Land Your Robocall Case in Arbitration

What Happened

The plaintiff's cellphone had been on the National Do Not Call Registry since 2014. In April 2024, she expressed interest in a Camry on two different lead sites, AutoWeb and a TrueCar page offered through an affinity partner. Both sites passed her number to the dealership, which texted her. She texted "Stop," got a confirmation that she had been removed, and then, according to the complaint, received at least eleven telemarketing calls through July 2024. She filed this suit on behalf of a registry class and an opt-out class.

The dealership moved to compel arbitration, arguing that it could enforce the arbitration agreements in both websites' terms of service.

AutoWeb Strikes Out

The dealership offered a declaration saying the plaintiff clicked a button agreeing to the terms of use, but nobody produced a screenshot of the page she actually saw in April 2024. A screenshot from October 2025 was not good enough. Without seeing the interface, the court could not judge whether she had reasonable notice under Massachusetts law.

TrueCar Hits a Home Run

TrueCar had receipts. Its page required a user to check a box accepting the underlined, hyperlinked "Terms of Service" before clicking "Next." The first section of the terms of service contained an arbitration agreement in capital letters directing users to read it carefully.

Applying the Massachusetts clickwrap framework, the court admitted that a reasonable car shopper might not expect to sign a contract just to get prices. But the clean interface, the express checkbox, and the obvious hyperlinks outweighed that. She did not dispute checking the box, so she was bound whether or not she read the terms.

The agreement delegated arbitrability questions to the arbitrator and incorporated the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules. Her unconscionability arguments attacked the arbitration agreement as a whole, not the delegation clause itself, so those went to the arbitrator too.

The Dealer Gets a Seat at the Table

The most interesting part is the third-party beneficiary holding. The TrueCar agreement said "Participating Dealers" were intended third-party beneficiaries who could enforce it, and defined that term as any dealer in the TrueCar network. The plaintiff argued the agreement never named this particular dealership. The court said naming a category is enough, relying on Massachusetts cases where agreements covering "employees" or "agents" let individual nurses enforce them. The case was stayed pending arbitration.

Why This Matters

For dealers and other businesses buying leads, this is a reminder to check whether the lead source's terms name you, or your category, as a beneficiary of its arbitration clause. Keep the actual screenshots from the date of the lead, because a declaration alone can sink you.

For consumers and their lawyers, the takeaway is that the fight is often about the web form, not the phone calls. This order applies Massachusetts law, so results elsewhere may differ.

Read the District of Massachusetts order compelling arbitration in Katzeff v. Toyota of Dartmouth.