In January 2012, Zappos suffered a data security breach that gave hackers personal information of their customers.

[4][1] Plaintiffs listed twelve causes of action for the suit accusing Zappos of not taking adequate measures to safeguard customers' personally identifiable information.

The most time-saving implementation being a resolution of the facts involved in the case and series of events leading to and following the security breach.

Such a motion would require that the Court stop proceedings on the consolidated suits that were arranged to take place in a single class action.

Browsewrap agreements such as this are created when the user does not have to click a button or check a box to indicate that they have accepted the terms of service for a particular website.

Judge Jones cited several cases supporting the procedure of determining whether the parties formed a contract before deciding whether or not to compel arbitration including Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostics Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126 (2000).

The Court wrote that this kind of agreement would give Zappos an "escape hatch" that it could use "if it determined arbitration was no longer in its interest."

[8] Zappos argued that, under the equitable estoppel doctrine, the plaintiffs may not sue for breach of contract trying to avoid the terms of use by not submitting to arbitration.

The Court declined to apply the doctrine, stating that the plaintiffs were not aware of the terms of use, and they were suing based on "other statements and guarantees found on the website.

Law blogger William Carleton reported on 8 November 2012, two months after the decision, that Zappos's terms of use was identical to an archived copy from May 2011.

One common theme was the recommendation of clickwrap over browserwrap, in which the site explicitly obtains assent when a user clicks an "accept" button.

"[12] Law firm Stanfield Hiserodt suggested that the size of the case, with 24 million claimants in the class action, may have played a role in the decision.