Opinion ID: 4556847
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Washington State Law

Text: Amazon next asserts that, in the event the FAA and federal law do not apply, Washington state law governs the arbitration provision pursuant to the TOS’s severability provision or by applying choice-of-law principles. We disagree. The TOS provides that: “These Terms are governed by the law of the state of Washington without regard to its conflict of laws principles, except for Section 11 of this Agreement, which is governed by the Federal Arbitration RITTMANN V. AMAZON.COM 31 Act and applicable federal law.” Amazon contends that the district court should have severed the choice-of-FAA provision pursuant to this provision and, thus, Washington law would apply to the TOS in its entirety. Two principles of contract interpretation under Washington law foreclose Amazon’s desired result. Pursuant to Washington law, a court gives effect to a severability clause if the court “can easily excise the unconscionable provision without essentially rewriting the contract.” McKee v. AT&T Corp., 191 P.3d 845, 861 (Wash. 2008) (en banc). Washington law also follows the contract law principle that “any ambiguity in a contract will be construed against the drafter.” Dennis v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 503 P.2d 1114, 1117 (Wash. App. 1972). Applying those principles here leads us to reject Amazon’s arguments. Even if we assume arguendo that the provision is susceptible to a severability analysis, 10 it does not help Amazon. Were we to sever the choice-of-FAA clause, the governing law provision would state that the TOS is “governed by the law of the state of Washington without regard to its conflict of laws principles, except for Section 11 of this Agreement.” In that case, the plain language of the contract would prohibit applying Washington law to the arbitration provision. To escape that result, Amazon would have us go further and sever the entire “except for” clause. In light of the fact that the provision expressly treats the arbitration provision differently, that approach would violate the principle that we 10 We fail to see how the choice-of-FAA clause that Amazon drafted is unconscionable merely because the provision does not work as Amazon might have intended. 32 RITTMANN V. AMAZON.COM are not free to rewrite the contract under the guise of severability. Lawson further argues that Amazon’s approach runs the risk of reforming the contract if the parties did not intend that Washington law apply to the arbitration provision under any circumstances. We need not reach that question. Because it is not clear that the parties intended to apply Washington law to the arbitration provision in the event the FAA did not apply, we construe ambiguity in the contract against Amazon to avoid that result. 11 Amazon’s choice-of-law arguments likewise fail. Amazon argues that Washington law presumptively governs in the absence of a conflict of law. Washington law recognizes that “[w]here laws or interests of concerned states do not conflict, the situation presents a false conflict and the presumptive local law [applies].” Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Kung Da Chang, 404 P.3d 62, 65 (Wash. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if we assume that this principle applies, we do not see what it proves. As we have explained, we cannot sever the clause that applies Washington law to the contract “except for Section 11” from the governing law provision without impermissibly rewriting the contract. Amazon cites no authority that would allow us to conclude that the presumption in favor of local law overcomes express contractual language that precludes its application. Because there is no law that governs the arbitration provision, we agree with the district court that there is no 11 We recognize that the First Circuit’s decision in Waithaka reached a different result in interpreting identical contract terms. However, it is not clear that the court applied the Washington state law principles of contract interpretation that we identify here. See Waithaka, 2020 WL 4034997, at  & n.13. Applying those principles, we are not persuaded by Amazon’s severability arguments. RITTMANN V. AMAZON.COM 33 valid arbitration agreement. We therefore reject Amazon’s alternative bases to compel arbitration.