{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:8-f-4th-631","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:8-f-4th-631)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-14","fingerprint":"ewai:us:88b5b2","proof":"sha256:c1d503cbbd473a5cf0ce399b97d830f275f08b5cd564dde946b4f0511e4c3afc","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:8-f-4th-631","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"In the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"For the Seventh Circuit","paragraphs":["para_4"]},{"title":"No. 21-1107","paragraphs":["para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11"]},{"title":"Appeal from the United States District Court for the","paragraphs":["para_13","para_14","para_15"]},{"title":"ARGUED MAY 27, 2021 — DECIDED AUGUST 11, 2021","paragraphs":["para_17","para_18"]},{"title":"KIRSCH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Fredy Sosa, a user of the","paragraphs":["para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26"]},{"title":"2 No. 21-1107","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The merits of Sosa’s BIPA claim are not at issue at this early","paragraphs":["para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42"]},{"title":"The district court rejected each of Onfido’s nonparty con-","paragraphs":["para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55"]},{"title":"We agree with the district court in all respects. In the dis-","paragraphs":["para_57","para_58"]},{"title":"No. 21-1107 3","paragraphs":["para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68"]},{"title":"I","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Onfido provides biometric identification software that is","paragraphs":["para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83"]},{"title":"Sosa first filed his BIPA class action against Onfido in Illi-","paragraphs":["para_85","para_86"]},{"title":"Fairness Act. Once in federal court, Onfido moved to stay the","paragraphs":["para_88","para_89","para_90"]},{"title":"4 No. 21-1107","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Sosa agreed to OfferUp’s Terms of Service when he regis-","paragraphs":["para_93"]},{"title":"Service designate that the contract is between Sosa and Of-","paragraphs":["para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98"]},{"title":"(caps omitted). The mandatory arbitration provision states","paragraphs":["para_100"]},{"title":"Sosa and OfferUp related to the Terms of Service, id. at 35","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(caps omitted), and that both Sosa and OfferUp agreed to","paragraphs":["para_103","para_104","para_105"]},{"title":"OfferUp’s respective rights to have any and all","paragraphs":["para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110"]},{"title":"OfferUp agree to arbitrate Disputes through","paragraphs":["para_112"]},{"title":"Dispute to one or more persons charged with re-","paragraphs":["para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117"]},{"title":"Id. at 35–36.1","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1 The Terms of Service exempt a subset of disputes from arbitration, none","paragraphs":["para_120"]},{"title":"No. 21-1107 5","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Onfido is not named in the Terms of Service, but the agree-","paragraphs":["para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126"]},{"title":"(a) any personal identification document that","paragraphs":["para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136"]},{"title":"DO NOT USE THIS FEATURE IF THE","paragraphs":["para_138","para_139"]},{"title":"Beyond section 4’s limitations on Sosa’s use of the TruYou","paragraphs":["para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144"]},{"title":"Meanwhile, the agreement authorizes OfferUp to “disclose","paragraphs":["para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150"]},{"title":"(caps omitted). OfferUp providers are defined to include “af-","paragraphs":["para_152"]},{"title":"6 No. 21-1107","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"OfferUp’s control over third-party content is expressly","paragraphs":["para_155"]},{"title":"In using the OfferUp Service, you may view","paragraphs":["para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165"]},{"title":"Id. at 26–27. In addition, the agreement provides that its","paragraphs":["para_167","para_168","para_169"]},{"title":"In its motion to compel individual arbitration, Onfido ar-","paragraphs":["para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179"]},{"title":"The district court denied Onfido’s motion to stay and com-","paragraphs":["para_181"]},{"title":"Onfido’s enforcement rights under the Terms of Service. In","paragraphs":["para_183"]},{"title":"No. 21-1107 7","paragraphs":["para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204"]},{"title":"Onfido now brings an interlocutory appeal of the district","paragraphs":["para_206"]},{"title":"9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A) & (B). We begin our review with the dis-","paragraphs":["para_208","para_209","para_210"]},{"title":"II","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"A nonparty’s right to enforce an arbitration agreement is","paragraphs":["para_213"]},{"title":"U.S. 624, 630–31 (2009). This fundamental principle is not con-","paragraphs":["para_215"]},{"title":"8 No. 21-1107","paragraphs":["para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225"]},{"title":"As noted, the district court sided with Sosa and applied","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Illinois law. We review the district court’s choice-of-law deci-","paragraphs":["para_228"]},{"title":"Inc., 580 F.3d 543, 546 (7th Cir. 2009). When a federal court sits","paragraphs":["para_230","para_231","para_232"]},{"title":"718 (7th Cir. 2018). Under Illinois choice-of-law rules, forum","paragraphs":["para_234","para_235","para_236"]},{"title":"(citation omitted); see Bridgeview Health Care Ctr., Ltd. v. State","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 10 N.E.3d 902, 905 (Ill. 2014) (“A choice-","paragraphs":["para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243"]},{"title":"Onfido contends that it established a conflict between Illi-","paragraphs":["para_245","para_246"]},{"title":"Illinois courts give effect to contractual choice-of-law clauses","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"No. 21-1107 9","paragraphs":["para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256"]},{"title":"Illinois and Washington law produce an identical result on","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Onfido’s claims plainly does not demonstrate an “outcome-","paragraphs":["para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262"]},{"title":"9–13. This was not sufficient to carry Onfido’s burden of","paragraphs":["para_264"]},{"title":"N.E.3d 1206, 1216 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019) (choice-of-law determi-","paragraphs":["para_266","para_267","para_268"]},{"title":"Onfido’s second argument—that notwithstanding its fail-","paragraphs":["para_270","para_271","para_272"]},{"title":"Specifically, Onfido contends that Illinois’ traditional con-","paragraphs":["para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277"]},{"title":"Wheeze & Itch Assocs., LLC v. Dynavax Techs. Corp., No. 09–cv–","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1190, 2010 WL 1050249, at *6 n.9 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2010)). That","paragraphs":["para_280"]},{"title":"10 No. 21-1107","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"And under Illinois law, nonparties to a contract are not enti-","paragraphs":["para_283","para_284"]},{"title":"665 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003); Maremont Corp. v. Cheshire, 681 N.E.2d","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"548, 551–52 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997); Jakubik v. Jakubik, 566 N.E.2d","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"808, 810 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991). Onfido offers no authority to sup-","paragraphs":["para_288","para_289","para_290"]},{"title":"To the contrary, Illinois courts have recognized time and","paragraphs":["para_292","para_293","para_294"]},{"title":"(quotation omitted); see Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 879","paragraphs":["para_296"]},{"title":"Inc., 958 N.E.2d 397, 403 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (“Choice of law","paragraphs":["para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306"]},{"title":"See SBC Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 872 N.E.2d","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"10, 21 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (“In the absence of a conflict, Illinois","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"2 For example, Onfido’s reliance on Sneeze Wheeze is inapplicable here be-","paragraphs":["para_310","para_311","para_312"]},{"title":"No. 21-1107 11","paragraphs":["para_314","para_315"]},{"title":"III","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"With choice of law settled we now turn to the merits of the","paragraphs":["para_318","para_319","para_320"]},{"title":"Shake Enters., Inc., 765 F.3d 776, 779 (7th Cir. 2014) (emphasis","paragraphs":["para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328"]},{"title":"A nonsignatory to a contract typically has no right to in-","paragraphs":["para_330","para_331"]},{"title":"(Ill. App. Ct. 2000). But there are recognized exceptions to","paragraphs":["para_333","para_334","para_335"]},{"title":"Inc., 812 N.E.2d 534, 539–41 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (applying","paragraphs":["para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341"]},{"title":"12 No. 21-1107","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"A","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Onfido first argues that it can enforce the arbitration","paragraphs":["para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348"]},{"title":"Ins. Co., 117 N.E.3d 1155, 1159 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). To over-","paragraphs":["para_350","para_351","para_352"]},{"title":"Point Inc., 568 N.E.2d 365, 375 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (quotation","paragraphs":["para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360"]},{"title":"920, 924 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). This intention “must be shown by","paragraphs":["para_362","para_363","para_364"]},{"title":"Onfido is not named in the Terms of Service but it argues","paragraphs":["para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373"]},{"title":"No. 21-1107 13","paragraphs":["para_375","para_376"]},{"title":"Terms of Service indicate that this section or the contract as a","paragraphs":["para_378","para_379","para_380"]},{"title":"Ass’n, 568 N.E.2d at 375. And, even if we accept that Onfido","paragraphs":["para_382"]},{"title":"TruYou provision, that is not sufficient to demonstrate that","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Onfido qualifies as a third-party beneficiary under Illinois","paragraphs":["para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389"]},{"title":"Onfido additionally points to the contract’s limitation of","paragraphs":["para_391","para_392"]},{"title":"33 (caps omitted). But the contract defines “OfferUp provid-","paragraphs":["para_394","para_395","para_396"]},{"title":"3 For the first time on appeal, Onfido contends that it should be granted","paragraphs":["para_398","para_399","para_400"]},{"title":"Henry v. Hulett, 969 F.3d 769, 786 (7th Cir. 2020) (recognizing that in a","paragraphs":["para_402","para_403","para_404"]},{"title":"14 No. 21-1107","paragraphs":["para_406","para_407","para_408"]},{"title":"LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). Onfido offers no evidence of","paragraphs":["para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413"]},{"title":"Ins. Exch., 831 N.E.2d 1100, 1102 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (“It has","paragraphs":["para_415","para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419"]},{"title":"Moreover, we note that the Terms of Service explicitly dis-","paragraphs":["para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430"]},{"title":"B","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Next, Onfido contends it can enforce the Terms of Service","paragraphs":["para_433","para_434","para_435","para_436"]},{"title":"No. 21-1107 15","paragraphs":["para_438","para_439","para_440","para_441"]},{"title":"742, 745 (7th Cir. 1998) (interpreting Illinois law) (quotation","paragraphs":["para_443","para_444","para_445","para_446","para_447","para_448","para_449","para_450"]},{"title":"Onfido—the purported agent of OfferUp—offers little to","paragraphs":["para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457","para_458","para_459"]},{"title":"Onfido contends that courts often consider a complaint’s alle-","paragraphs":["para_461","para_462","para_463"]},{"title":"OfferUp and Onfido. That OfferUp encouraged users to reg-","paragraphs":["para_465"]},{"title":"Onfido and OfferUp partnered to provide this technology","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"16 No. 21-1107","paragraphs":["para_468","para_469"]},{"title":"In light of Illinois’ recognition that elements of control and","paragraphs":["para_471","para_472","para_473","para_474"]},{"title":"C","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Finally, Onfido argues that it is entitled to enforce the ar-","paragraphs":["para_477","para_478","para_479","para_480","para_481","para_482","para_483","para_484","para_485","para_486","para_487","para_488"]},{"title":"Applying this standard, Onfido failed to show that Sosa","paragraphs":["para_490","para_491","para_492","para_493"]},{"title":"4 Onfido also argues for the first time on appeal that Onfido is OfferUp’s","paragraphs":["para_495","para_496","para_497"]},{"title":"No. 21-1107 17","paragraphs":["para_499","para_500"]},{"title":"TruYou feature were directed at OfferUp—not Onfido. Fur-","paragraphs":["para_502","para_503","para_504","para_505","para_506"]},{"title":"Onfido responds that it should not be required to establish","paragraphs":["para_508","para_509"]},{"title":"22 F. Supp. 3d 880, 890 (N.D. Ill. 2014). There, the Northern","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"District of Illinois, applying federal common law, noted that","paragraphs":["para_512","para_513","para_514","para_515","para_516","para_517","para_518"]},{"title":"This federal standard has never been applied by any Illi-","paragraphs":["para_520","para_521","para_522"]},{"title":"Supreme Court has reaffirmed its longstanding detrimental","paragraphs":["para_524","para_525","para_526","para_527","para_528","para_529"]},{"title":"18 No. 21-1107","paragraphs":["para_531","para_532"]},{"title":"AFFIRMED","paragraphs":[]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"In the","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"For the Seventh Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"No. 21-1107","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"FREDY SOSA,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Plaintiff-Appellee,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"ONFIDO, INC.,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Defendant-Appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court for the","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"No. 1:20-cv-04247 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"ARGUED MAY 27, 2021 — DECIDED AUGUST 11, 2021","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Before KANNE, SCUDDER, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"KIRSCH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Fredy Sosa, a user of the","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"marketplace application OfferUp, registered his identity to","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"become a verified user on the app. The verification process","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"involved using the app’s TruYou feature with technology","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"provided by defendant Onfido, Inc. Sosa has since sued On-","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"fido under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act al-","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"leging that the TruYou feature used facial recognition tech-","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"nology to collect his biometric identifiers without his consent.","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"2 No. 21-1107","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"The merits of Sosa’s BIPA claim are not at issue at this early","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"stage. This appeal instead concerns whether Sosa may con-","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"tinue litigating his action against Onfido in federal court. On-","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"fido argues that this case belongs in arbitration because it is","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"entitled to enforce an arbitration clause in the Terms of Ser-","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"vice contract between Sosa and OfferUp. Though Onfido is","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"not a party to the Terms of Service, it argues that it is entitled","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"to enforce the arbitration clause under three separate non-","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"party contract enforcement theories: third-party beneficiary,","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"agency, and equitable estoppel. Adding another layer to this","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"dispute, this appeal presents a choice-of-law question. Be-","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"cause the Terms of Service has a Washington choice-of-law","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"provision, Onfido argues that Washington law, rather than Il-","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"linois law, must be applied to determine its enforcement","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"rights under the contract.","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"The district court rejected each of Onfido’s nonparty con-","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"tract enforcement theories and denied Onfido’s motion to","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"compel individual arbitration. On the choice-of-law issue, it","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"held that Onfido failed to establish that there was an outcome-","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"determinative difference between Illinois and Washington","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"law, and since Onfido articulated no difference between the","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"two, it applied Illinois law—the law of the forum state—to","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"determine Onfido’s right to enforce the arbitration clause. In","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"so doing, the district court held that Onfido failed to establish","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"that it was a third-party beneficiary of the Terms of Service or","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"that it could otherwise enforce the contract’s arbitration pro-","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"vision either as an agent of OfferUp or on equitable estoppel","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"grounds.","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"We agree with the district court in all respects. In the dis-","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"trict court proceedings, Onfido never suggested any differ-","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"ence between Illinois and Washington law, and the district","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"No. 21-1107 3","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"court thus properly applied Illinois law. Further, nothing in","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"the Terms of Service designate Onfido as a third-party bene-","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"ficiary of that contract, and the record is devoid of evidence","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"establishing that Onfido is an agent of OfferUp, or that Sosa","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"should be equitably estopped from contesting Onfido’s right","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"to enforce the arbitration provision. Because Onfido failed to","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"establish any right to enforce the arbitration provision as a","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"nonparty to the Terms of Service, we affirm the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"denial of Onfido’s motion to compel individual arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"I","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"Onfido provides biometric identification software that is","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"incorporated into its customers’ products and mobile apps","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"with the purpose of verifying users’ identities. Onfido part-","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"nered with OfferUp—an online marketplace where consum-","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"ers buy and sell goods—to verify users’ identities through its","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"software. Fredy Sosa verified his identity with OfferUp using","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"the technology provided by Onfido—the app’s TruYou fea-","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"ture. To complete the verification process, Sosa uploaded a","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"photograph of his driver’s license and a photograph of his","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"face. Sosa alleges that Onfido then used biometric identifica-","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"tion technology without his consent to extract his biometric","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"identifiers and compare the two photographs. Sosa brought","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"class action claims against Onfido under the Illinois Biometric","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"Information Privacy Act stemming from these allegations.","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"Sosa first filed his BIPA class action against Onfido in Illi-","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"nois state court, but Onfido removed the case to federal court","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"on diversity jurisdiction grounds and under the Class Action","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"Fairness Act. Once in federal court, Onfido moved to stay the","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"case and to compel individual arbitration based on an arbitra-","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"tion provision in OfferUp’s Terms of Service that Onfido ar-","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"gues it is entitled to enforce.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"4 No. 21-1107","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"Sosa agreed to OfferUp’s Terms of Service when he regis-","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"tered with the app and each time he logged in. The Terms of","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"Service designate that the contract is between Sosa and Of-","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"ferUp. In bold, the first paragraph of the agreement states that","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"it includes “a mandatory arbitration provision and class ac-","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"tion waiver provision, which affect your [Sosa’s] rights about","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"how to resolve any dispute with OfferUp, Inc.” R. 23 at 13","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"(caps omitted). The mandatory arbitration provision states","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"that the provision extends to “any and all disputes” between","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"Sosa and OfferUp related to the Terms of Service, id. at 35","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"(caps omitted), and that both Sosa and OfferUp agreed to","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"have any disputes between them resolved through arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"instead of court:","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"[Y]ou and OfferUp agree (1) to waive your and","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"OfferUp’s respective rights to have any and all","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"Disputes arising from or related to these Terms,","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"the OfferUp Service or the Materials, resolved in","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"a court, and (2) to waive your and OfferUp’s re-","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"spective rights to a jury trial. Instead, you and","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"OfferUp agree to arbitrate Disputes through","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"binding arbitration (which is the referral of a","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"Dispute to one or more persons charged with re-","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"viewing the Dispute and making a final and","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"binding determination to resolve it instead of","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"having the Dispute decided by a judge or jury","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"in court).","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"Id. at 35–36.1","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"1 The Terms of Service exempt a subset of disputes from arbitration, none","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"of which are applicable here. R. 23 at Ex. A § 20(A).","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"No. 21-1107 5","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"Onfido is not named in the Terms of Service, but the agree-","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"ment does identify Onfido’s software—the TruYou feature—","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"in section 4. That section provides in relevant part:","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"If you [Sosa] choose to use the TruYou feature,","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"you represent and warrant to us [OfferUp] that","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"(a) any personal identification document that","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"you provide to us is an unaltered and accurate","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"image of your government-issued personal","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"identification document that is without error,","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"and (b) that you have all necessary permissions","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"to provide such personal identification docu-","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"ments to us and your provision of such personal","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"identification documents to us will not violate","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"any law or regulation or cause us to be subject","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"to any investigation, prosecution or legal action.","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"DO NOT USE THIS FEATURE IF THE","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"FOREGOING IS NOT TRUE.","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"Id. at 18.","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"Beyond section 4’s limitations on Sosa’s use of the TruYou","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"feature, the contract also generally prohibits users from using","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"the OfferUp service to “post, upload to, transmit, distribute","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"… disclose, or otherwise, publish” any content that “may ex-","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"pose OfferUp, Users or others to harm or liability.” Id. at 25.","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"Meanwhile, the agreement authorizes OfferUp to “disclose","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"[users’] photo identification document[s] or certain personal","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"information [they] provide to [OfferUp’s] third-party service","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"providers.” Id. at 18–19. The agreement additionally limits","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"any liability of “OfferUp” and “OfferUp providers” arising","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"out of or connected with the OfferUp service’s use. Id. at 33","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"(caps omitted). OfferUp providers are defined to include “af-","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"filiates [and] licensors.” Id. at 31 (caps omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"6 No. 21-1107","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"OfferUp’s control over third-party content is expressly","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"disclaimed by the Terms of Service:","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"In using the OfferUp Service, you may view","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"content, utilize services, or otherwise interact","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"with content and services provided by third","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"parties, including, but not limited to, the Of-","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"ferUp Payment Solution provided by a third-","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"party payment processor, links and/or connec-","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"tions to websites, applications or services of","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"such parties (“Third-Party Content”). OfferUp","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"does not control, endorse or adopt any Third-","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"Party Content ….","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"Id. at 26–27. In addition, the agreement provides that its","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"“Terms do not create any private right of action on the part of","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"any third party.” Id. at 25. A Washington choice-of-law provi-","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"sion is also included.","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"In its motion to compel individual arbitration, Onfido ar-","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"gued that it was entitled to enforce the Terms of Service as a","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"nonparty under three separate theories: (1) as a third-party","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"beneficiary of the Terms of Service, (2) through its alleged","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"agency relationship with OfferUp, and (3) on equitable estop-","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"pel grounds. Although it identified the Terms of Service’s","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"choice-of-law provision and cited to both Washington and Il-","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"linois law in its district court briefing, Onfido argued only that","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"it prevailed under both states’ laws without articulating any","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"difference in their application.","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"The district court denied Onfido’s motion to stay and com-","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"pel individual arbitration and applied Illinois law to decide","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"Onfido’s enforcement rights under the Terms of Service. In","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"choosing Illinois law over Washington law, the district court","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"No. 21-1107 7","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"explained that “the parties agree that there are no outcome-","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"determinative differences between Illinois law and Washing-","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"ton law.” The district court then rejected each of Onfido’s","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"three nonparty enforcement theories. First, the district court","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"held that Onfido failed to establish that it was a third-party","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"beneficiary of the Terms of Service because the agreement did","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"not specifically name Onfido as an intended beneficiary of the","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"contract nor indirectly identified it as such by describing a","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"class to which it belongs. Onfido also did not show that it was","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"an “affiliate” of OfferUp to qualify as an OfferUp provider","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"under the Terms of Service. The district court additionally","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"held that Onfido could not enforce the Terms of Service as an","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"agent of OfferUp because no evidence supported that Of-","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"ferUp controlled Onfido’s activities or that it authorized On-","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"fido to conduct legal transactions in OfferUp’s name. In re-","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"jecting Onfido’s equitable estoppel theory, the district court","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"found that Onfido failed to show that it detrimentally relied","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"on the Terms of Service’s arbitration clause such that Sosa","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"should be barred from contesting Onfido’s invocation of that","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"provision.","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"Onfido now brings an interlocutory appeal of the district","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration pursuant to","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A) & (B). We begin our review with the dis-","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"trict court’s determination on the choice-of-law issue and then","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"turn to its conclusions on Onfido’s three nonparty enforce-","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"ment theories.","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"II","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"A nonparty’s right to enforce an arbitration agreement is","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"governed by state law. See Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"U.S. 624, 630–31 (2009). This fundamental principle is not con-","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"tested here. Instead, the parties dispute whether Illinois state","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"8 No. 21-1107","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"law or Washington state law governs Onfido’s right to en-","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"force the Terms of Service’s arbitration provision. Onfido ar-","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"gues that Washington law must apply because the Terms of","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"Service include a Washington choice-of-law provision. Sosa,","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"on the other hand, contends that applying the Washington","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"choice-of-law provision runs afoul of Illinois’ choice-of-law","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"rules because Onfido did not establish an outcome-determi-","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"native difference between Illinois and Washington law in the","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"district court.","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"As noted, the district court sided with Sosa and applied","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"Illinois law. We review the district court’s choice-of-law deci-","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"sion de novo. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Websolv Computing,","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"Inc., 580 F.3d 543, 546 (7th Cir. 2009). When a federal court sits","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"in diversity, “we look to the choice-of-law rules of the forum","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"state to determine which state’s law applies” to the issues be-","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"fore it. Heiman v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distrib. Co., 902 F.3d 715,","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"718 (7th Cir. 2018). Under Illinois choice-of-law rules, forum","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"law is applied “unless an actual conflict with another state’s","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"law is shown, or the parties agree that forum law does not","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"apply.” Gunn v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 968 F.3d 802, 808 (7th Cir. 2020)","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"(citation omitted); see Bridgeview Health Care Ctr., Ltd. v. State","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 10 N.E.3d 902, 905 (Ill. 2014) (“A choice-","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"of-law determination is required only when a difference in","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"law will make a difference in the outcome.” (quotation omit-","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"ted)). “The party seeking the choice-of-law determination","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"bears the burden of demonstrating a conflict.” Bridgeview","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"Health Care Ctr., Ltd., 10 N.E.3d at 905.","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"Onfido contends that it established a conflict between Illi-","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"nois and Washington law before the district court, while ad-","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"ditionally arguing that it had no obligation to do so because","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"Illinois courts give effect to contractual choice-of-law clauses","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"No. 21-1107 9","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"without regard to the state’s traditional conflicts rules. On-","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"fido’s first argument is a non-starter. Onfido made no attempt","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"to articulate any difference between Illinois and Washington","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"law before the district court—much less an outcome determi-","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"native one. In its district court briefing, Onfido argued only","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"that it prevailed under both Illinois and Washington law on","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"its third-party beneficiary, agency, and equitable estoppel","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"theories of nonparty contract enforcement. But arguing that","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"Illinois and Washington law produce an identical result on","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"Onfido’s claims plainly does not demonstrate an “outcome-","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"determinative” difference between them. Onfido merely cited","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"the theories’ elements under both Illinois and Washington","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"law, noted that the states’ standards applied “similarly,” and","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"claimed that it prevailed under both states’ laws. See R. 21 at","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"9–13. This was not sufficient to carry Onfido’s burden of","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"demonstrating a conflict. See RS Invs. Ltd. v. RSM US, LLP, 125","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"N.E.3d 1206, 1216 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019) (choice-of-law determi-","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"nation on the issue of standing rendered “pointless” where","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"defendant argued that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"under both Illinois and Cayman Islands law).","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"Onfido’s second argument—that notwithstanding its fail-","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"ure to demonstrate an outcome-determinative difference be-","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"tween Illinois and Washington law, Onfido should not have","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"been put to that test to begin with—is equally unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"Specifically, Onfido contends that Illinois’ traditional con-","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"flicts-of-law rules do not apply because Illinois courts “re-","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"spect[] a contract’s choice-of-law clause as long as the contract","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"is valid and the law chosen is not contrary to Illinois’ funda-","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"mental public policy.” Appellant’s Br. at 13 (quoting Sneeze","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"Wheeze & Itch Assocs., LLC v. Dynavax Techs. Corp., No. 09–cv–","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"1190, 2010 WL 1050249, at *6 n.9 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2010)). That","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"may be true, but Onfido is not a party to the contract here.","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"10 No. 21-1107","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"And under Illinois law, nonparties to a contract are not enti-","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"tled to enforce a choice-of-law provision thereunder. See Mal-","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"donado v. Creative Woodworking Concepts, Inc., 796 N.E.2d 662,","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"665 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003); Maremont Corp. v. Cheshire, 681 N.E.2d","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"548, 551–52 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997); Jakubik v. Jakubik, 566 N.E.2d","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"808, 810 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991). Onfido offers no authority to sup-","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"port its position that Illinois’ longstanding choice-of-law prin-","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"ciples are disregarded when a nonparty seeks to establish its","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"enforcement rights under a contract.2","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"To the contrary, Illinois courts have recognized time and","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"time again that “[a] choice-of-law determination is required","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"only when a difference in law will make a difference in the","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"outcome.” Bridgeview Health Care Ctr., Ltd., 10 N.E.3d at 905","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"(quotation omitted); see Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 879","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"N.E.2d 893, 898 (Ill. 2007) (same); Pekin Ins. Co. v. XData Sols.,","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"Inc., 958 N.E.2d 397, 403 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (“Choice of law","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"considerations are not implicated unless there is an actual","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"conflict in the law of the two states.”). While Onfido couches","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"its argument in contract enforcement, it plainly seeks a choice-","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"of-law determination in this case. It contends that Washington","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"law should apply to determine its right to enforce the arbitra-","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"tion agreement as a nonparty, rather than Illinois law. But as","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"we have explained, Onfido’s failure to demonstrate any con-","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"flict between Illinois and Washington law before the district","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"court rendered a choice-of-law determination inappropriate.","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"See SBC Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 872 N.E.2d","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"10, 21 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (“In the absence of a conflict, Illinois","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"2 For example, Onfido’s reliance on Sneeze Wheeze is inapplicable here be-","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"cause in that case, unlike here, both parties agreed that a contractual","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"choice-of-law provision designating California law applied to the parties’","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"dispute.","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"No. 21-1107 11","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"law applies as the law of the forum.”). Accordingly, the dis-","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"trict court properly applied Illinois law.","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"III","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"With choice of law settled we now turn to the merits of the","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"district court’s denial of Onfido’s motion to compel arbitra-","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"tion. “We review de novo a district court’s grant or denial of","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"a motion to compel arbitration.” Druco Rests., Inc. v. Steak N","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"Shake Enters., Inc., 765 F.3d 776, 779 (7th Cir. 2014) (emphasis","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"removed). We review findings of fact underlying that deci-","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"sion for clear error. Id. On Onfido’s equitable estoppel claim,","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"however, “we review [the] district court’s decision to apply","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"an equitable doctrine for an abuse of discretion,” as we do in","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"other contexts, because “nothing about arbitration would","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"seem to call for a different approach.” A.D. v. Credit One Bank,","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"N.A., 885 F.3d 1054, 1059 (7th Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"A nonsignatory to a contract typically has no right to in-","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"voke an arbitration provision contained in that contract. See,","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"e.g., Caligiuri v. First Colony Life Ins. Co., 742 N.E.2d 750, 755","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"(Ill. App. Ct. 2000). But there are recognized exceptions to","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"that general rule, including the three nonparty contract en-","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"forcement theories—third-party beneficiary, agency, and eq-","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"uitable estoppel—that Onfido raises here. See Ervin v. Nokia,","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"Inc., 812 N.E.2d 534, 539–41 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (applying","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"third-party beneficiary, agency, and equitable estoppel theo-","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"ries in considering a nonparty’s claim to enforce an arbitra-","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"tion agreement). We address below whether Onfido has a","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"right to enforce the arbitration provision in the Terms of Ser-","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"vice under any of these doctrines.","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"12 No. 21-1107","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"A","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"Onfido first argues that it can enforce the arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"clause as a third-party beneficiary of the Terms of Service. Il-","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"linois courts, however, recognize a “strong presumption","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"against conferring contractual benefits on noncontracting","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"third parties.” Marque Medicos Farnsworth, LLC v. Liberty Mut.","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"Ins. Co., 117 N.E.3d 1155, 1159 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). To over-","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"come that presumption, “the implication that the contract ap-","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"plies to third parties must be so strong as to be practically an","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"express declaration.” 155 Harbor Drive Condo. Ass’n v. Harbor","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"Point Inc., 568 N.E.2d 365, 375 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (quotation","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"omitted). It is not enough to show that the “parties know, ex-","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"pect, or even intend that others will benefit from the agree-","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"ment.” Marque Medicos Farnsworth, LLC, 117 N.E.3d at 1159.","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"Instead, for a nonparty to qualify as a third-party beneficiary,","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"the language of the contract must show that “the contract was","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"made for the direct, not merely incidental, benefit of the third","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"person.” Martis v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 905 N.E.2d","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"920, 924 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). This intention “must be shown by","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"an express provision in the contract identifying the third-","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"party beneficiary by name or by description of a class to","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"which the third party belongs.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"Onfido is not named in the Terms of Service but it argues","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"the contract’s reference to its technology—the TruYou fea-","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"ture—in section 4 establishes its right as a third-party benefi-","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"ciary. We disagree. That section simply prohibits OfferUp us-","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"ers from using the TruYou feature without first obtaining nec-","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"essary permissions to upload their personal documents or if","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"their use of the feature would violate “any law or regula-","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"tion….” These limits on users’ operation of the TruYou fea-","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"ture directly benefit OfferUp, which has an interest in","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"No. 21-1107 13","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"prohibiting illegal conduct on its platform and minimizing its","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"exposure to liability related to such conduct. Nothing in the","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"Terms of Service indicate that this section or the contract as a","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"whole were intended for the direct benefit of Onfido. We thus","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"presume that the agreement intended to benefit OfferUp and","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"Sosa—the contracting parties. See 155 Harbor Drive Condo.","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"Ass’n, 568 N.E.2d at 375. And, even if we accept that Onfido","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"ultimately incidentally incurred a benefit from the contract’s","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"TruYou provision, that is not sufficient to demonstrate that","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"Onfido qualifies as a third-party beneficiary under Illinois","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"law. Martis 905 N.E.2d at 924. (“That the contracting parties","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"know, expect, or even intend that others will benefit from","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"their agreement is not enough to overcome the presumption","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"that the contract was intended for the direct benefit of the par-","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"ties.”).3","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"Onfido additionally points to the contract’s limitation of","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"liability provision, which protects OfferUp and “OfferUp pro-","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"viders,” to support its third-party beneficiary status. R. 23 at","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"33 (caps omitted). But the contract defines “OfferUp provid-","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"ers” as OfferUp’s “affiliates [and] licensors.” Id. at 31 (caps","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"omitted). Onfido is neither. First, Onfido does not argue that","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"it is a “licensor” of OfferUp. Second, an “affiliate” is generally","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"3 For the first time on appeal, Onfido contends that it should be granted","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"third-party beneficiary status, even as an incidental beneficiary of the","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"contract, because of its close relationship with OfferUp. Onfido did not","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"raise this argument before the district court, so we do not consider it. See","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"Henry v. Hulett, 969 F.3d 769, 786 (7th Cir. 2020) (recognizing that in a","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"civil case “we typically will not entertain an argument raised for the first","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"time on appeal, even for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether a","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"plain error occurred.” (quotation omitted)).","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"14 No. 21-1107","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"understood to be: “[a] corporation that is related to another","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"corporation by shareholdings or other means of control; a","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"subsidiary, parent, or sibling corporation.” Affiliate, BLACK’S","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). Onfido offers no evidence of","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"a formal corporate relationship with OfferUp, and it provides","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"no reason to suggest that the parties intended that the term","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"“affiliate,” as referenced in the Terms of Service means any-","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"thing other than its ordinary definition. See Hunt v. Farmers","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"Ins. Exch., 831 N.E.2d 1100, 1102 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (“It has","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"long been held by Illinois courts that words used in a contract","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"must be given their plain and ordinary meaning.”) (quotation","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"omitted)). Since Onfido is not an “OfferUp provider,” the con-","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"tract’s limitation of liability provision plainly does not apply","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"to it.","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"Moreover, we note that the Terms of Service explicitly dis-","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"claim control over third-party content, stating that the con-","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"tract creates no “private right of action on the part of any third","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"party.” R. 23 at 25. More narrowly, the arbitration provision","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"itself identifies that the agreement to arbitrate is between Sosa","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"and OfferUp without reference to a nonparty. Read as a","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"whole, the Terms of Service neither provide any benefit to On-","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"fido nor give Onfido a right to enforce the arbitration provi-","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"sion. The district court thus properly denied Onfido’s motion","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"to compel arbitration on Onfido’s third-party beneficiary the-","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"ory.","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"B","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"Next, Onfido contends it can enforce the Terms of Service","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"as an agent of OfferUp. Under Illinois law, “[a]gency is a","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"consensual, fiduciary relationship between two legal entities","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"created by law.” Ervin, 812 N.E.2d 534 at 539. We have rec-","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"ognized that “[t]he test of agency is whether the alleged","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"No. 21-1107 15","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"principal has the right to control the manner and method in","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"which work is carried out by the alleged agent and whether","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"the alleged agent can affect the legal relationships of the","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"principal.” Chemtool, Inc. v. Lubrication Techs., Inc., 148 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"742, 745 (7th Cir. 1998) (interpreting Illinois law) (quotation","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"omitted). “While an agency relationship can be created by","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"contract or conduct, not all contracts create agency relation-","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"ships and not all conduct creates agency relationships.” Id.;","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"see also id. at 745–46 (affirming the district court’s finding of","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"no agency relationship between a manufacturer and supplier","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"where the manufacturer did not exercise the requisite con-","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"trol over the supplier’s activities, nor show that the supplier","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"had authority to alter the manufacturer’s legal relations).","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"Onfido—the purported agent of OfferUp—offers little to","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"show that it has an agency relationship with OfferUp. Indeed,","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"it offers no evidence to support that OfferUp exercised control","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"over its activities, or that Onfido could affect legal relation-","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"ships on OfferUp’s behalf. Instead, Onfido relies primarily on","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"the allegations in Sosa’s complaint which alleged that Of-","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"ferUp “strongly encouraged [users] to register their identi-","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"ties” through the app’s TruYou feature and that OfferUp","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"“partnered up with Onfido” for this purpose. R. 1-1 at 8–9.","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"Onfido contends that courts often consider a complaint’s alle-","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"gations in deciding a motion to compel arbitration, but that’s","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"of no consequence here because the allegations in Sosa’s com-","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"plaint fail to support a principal-agent relationship between","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"OfferUp and Onfido. That OfferUp encouraged users to reg-","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"ister their identities with the app’s TruYou feature and that","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"Onfido and OfferUp partnered to provide this technology","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"16 No. 21-1107","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"through the app establishes nothing more than a business re-","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"lationship between the parties—not agency.4","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"In light of Illinois’ recognition that elements of control and","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"authority are essential to establish agency, and the lack of any","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"evidence offered by Onfido to support these elements, the dis-","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"trict court properly determined that Onfido failed to establish","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"an agency relationship with OfferUp.","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"C","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"Finally, Onfido argues that it is entitled to enforce the ar-","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"bitration agreement on equitable estoppel grounds. “A claim","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"of equitable estoppel exists where a person, by his or her state-","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"ments or conduct, induces a second person to rely, to his or","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"her detriment, on the statements or conduct of the first per-","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"son.” Ervin, 812 N.E.2d at 541 (quotation omitted). The party","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"bringing an equitable estoppel claim “must have relied upon","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"the acts or representations of the other and have had no","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"knowledge or convenient means of knowing the facts, and","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"such reliance must have been reasonable.” Id. “The party","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"claiming [equitable] estoppel has the burden of proving it by","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"clear and convincing evidence.” In re Scarlett Z.-D., 28 N.E.3d","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"776, 785 (Ill. 2015).","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"Applying this standard, Onfido failed to show that Sosa","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"should be equitably estopped from denying Onfido’s enforce-","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"ment of the arbitration provision. Onfido identified no repre-","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"sentation that Sosa made to Onfido under the Terms of Ser-","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"vice, or otherwise, to induce Onfido to rely on the contract’s","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"4 Onfido also argues for the first time on appeal that Onfido is OfferUp’s","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"agent on apparent authority principles. Since Onfido did not raise this ar-","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"gument before the district court, we do not consider it. See Henry, 969 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"at 786.","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"No. 21-1107 17","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"arbitration provision. Rather, as discussed, the representa-","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"tions in the Terms of Service concerning Sosa’s use of the","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"TruYou feature were directed at OfferUp—not Onfido. Fur-","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"ther, Onfido failed to present any evidence of its detrimental","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"reliance on any such representation as required by Illinois","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"law. And, in any event, its failure to argue detrimental reli-","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"ance until its reply brief before the district court rendered that","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"argument waived. We do not disturb that conclusion here.","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"Onfido responds that it should not be required to establish","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"detrimental reliance, urging the court to apply a federal com-","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"mon law standard articulated by Paragon Micro, Inc. v. Bundy,","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"22 F. Supp. 3d 880, 890 (N.D. Ill. 2014). There, the Northern","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"District of Illinois, applying federal common law, noted that","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"equitable estoppel may apply to enforce an arbitration provi-","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"sion where (1) the “signatory references to or presumes the","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"existence of a written agreement in asserting its claims against","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"a non-signatory”, or (2) the signatory “raises allegations of","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"both the non-signatory and one or more signatories to the","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"contract.” Id. (quotation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"This federal standard has never been applied by any Illi-","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"nois court, but Onfido nevertheless urges this court to predict","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"that the Illinois Supreme Court will adopt this standard in the","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"arbitration context. But even after Paragon Micro, the Illinois","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"Supreme Court has reaffirmed its longstanding detrimental","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"reliance standard in equitable estoppel claims. See In re Scar-","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"lett Z.-D., 28 N.E.3d at 785. We hardly need to predict where","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"it stands. Onfido offers no compelling reason to support its","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"position that the Illinois Supreme Court would adopt a differ-","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"ent standard in the arbitration context. Thus, like with On-","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"fido’s other enforcement theories, the district court","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"18 No. 21-1107","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"reasonably denied Onfido’s motion to compel arbitration on","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"equitable estoppel grounds.","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"AFFIRMED","paragraph_id":"para_533"}],"word_count":4647,"cites":["556\nU.S. 624","580 F.3d 543","902 F.3d 715","968 F.3d 802","765 F.3d 776","885 F.3d 1054","969 F.3d 769","148 F.3d\n742"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"96720965637d6d8adff00576f93ae449c616a99885ec793d4edfb62c9506f2af","source_url":"http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2021/D08-11/C:21-1107:J:Kirsch:aut:T:fnOp:N:2746267:S:0","fetched_at":"2026-10-02T05:45:51.329+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/8-f-4th-631","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:8-f-4th-631","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:8-f-4th-631","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:8-f-4th-631","verification":{"stored_sha256":"96720965637d6d8adff00576f93ae449c616a99885ec793d4edfb62c9506f2af","recomputed_sha256":"96720965637d6d8adff00576f93ae449c616a99885ec793d4edfb62c9506f2af","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-14T09:19:02.490Z"}},"hash":"sha256:c1d503cbbd473a5cf0ce399b97d830f275f08b5cd564dde946b4f0511e4c3afc","version":"legal-2026-10-14","expires":"2026-10-15T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-14+legal-2026-10-14+2026-10-14T08:26:07","content_hash":"sha256:c1d503cbbd473a5cf0ce399b97d830f275f08b5cd564dde946b4f0511e4c3afc","revalidate_after":"2026-10-14T10:19:02.645Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:8-f-4th-631","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:8-f-4th-631"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:8-f-4th-631"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:8-f-4th-631"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/8-f-4th-631","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-ef5c22c6e109b3c1bc46a07caa4539b3","response_hash":"sha256:c1d503cbbd473a5cf0ce399b97d830f275f08b5cd564dde946b4f0511e4c3afc"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T07:52:34.120Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3A8-f-4th-631&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":24037}}