53
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Kristi VonDeylen v. Aptive Environmental, LLC No. 24-3578 recently confirmed the broad reach of arbitration provisions in consumer contracts, holding that TCPA claims based on text messages sent years after services ended still “relate to” the parties’ contractual relationship and must be arbitrated.
The plaintiff, VonDeylen, hired pest-control company Aptive to provide quarterly home treatments. The service agreement included a broad arbitration provision requiring arbitration of “any controversy, dispute, or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the services performed by Aptive, or the relationship between the parties.”
Two years after Aptive performed its last service, Plaintiff VonDeylen received several text messages from the company. Some referenced enabling an autopay feature on her account, while others mentioned an upcoming appointment.
Plaintiff VonDeylen filed suit in federal court alleging the messages violated the TCPA and Minnesota privacy law. Aptive moved to compel arbitration under the service agreement. TCPA readers may recall the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota refused to enforce Aptive’s arbitration agreement, finding the dispute fell outside the arbitration clause.
Aptive appealed. The Eight Circuit emphasized a basic principle—that arbitration is a matter of contract. The key question was whether the plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement’s arbitration provision.
Here, the clause required arbitration of disputes “arising out of or relating to” the agreement, the services provided, or the parties’ relationship. The Eight Circuit noted that this phrase is among the broadest formulations used in arbitration agreements, covering claims with any logical connection to the contractual relationship:
The service agreement sends “any controversy, dispute[,] or claim … arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the services performed by Aptive under this Agreement or any other agreement, or the relationship between [VonDeylen] and Aptive resulting from any of the foregoing” to arbitration. (Emphasis added). As we have recognized, the phrase “arising out of or relating to” is “the broadest language the parties could [have] reasonably use[d].” Parm, 898 F.3d at 874 (citation omitted). It means that VonDeylen’s claims must head to arbitration if they “pertain” or have some logical “connection,” Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 383 (1992), to the parties’ contractual “relationship.” See id. (defining “relating to” as “to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1158 (5th ed. 1979))).
Applying that framework, the court concluded the text messages were connected to the parties’ relationship created by the pest control agreement.
The messages about autopay and account status directly related to account communications contemplated by the contract. Even the messages referencing a technician visit—likely sent in error—could still relate to scheduling or confirming service.
Plaintiff argued that the arbitration clause could not apply because the messages were sent two years after the parties’ service relationship ended.
In rejecting that argument, the Eighth Circuit held the arbitration clause explicitly stated that the obligation to arbitrate survives termination of the agreement, and the contract contained no sunset clause limiting its duration. The court also noted that the clause extended beyond disputes about the agreement itself to include disputes relating to the parties’ “relationship.”
Interpreting the contract as a whole, the court concluded that this language was meant to capture disputes connected to the broader relationship formed by the agreement—even if they arise after services have ended.
So because the alleged TCPA violations were connected to communications stemming from the parties’ contractual relationship, the court held the claims fell within the arbitration clause and reversed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration and stay the case.
This decision is yet another reminder that well drafted arbitration provisions can be a powerful tool for avoiding TCPA class exposure. Companies should ensure their arbitration clauses are written broadly enough to cover disputes relating to the parties’ relationship—including post termination communications—and that the provision expressly survives the end of the contract. If a business plans to rely on customer consent obtained during the account or service relationship, it should also confirm that the arbitration language clearly covers those communications and the parties involved. A carefully drafted arbitration clause can make the difference between resolving a dispute in individual arbitration and defending a costly TCPA class action in federal court.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC
Find Your Next Job !
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Kristi VonDeylen v. Aptive Environmental, LLC No. 24-3578 recently confirmed the broad reach of arbitration provisions in consumer contracts, holding that TCPA claims based on text messages sent years after services ended still “relate to” the parties’ contractual relationship and must be arbitrated.
The plaintiff, VonDeylen, hired pest-control company Aptive to provide quarterly home treatments. The service agreement included a broad arbitration provision requiring arbitration of “any controversy, dispute, or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the services performed by Aptive, or the relationship between the parties.”
Two years after Aptive performed its last service, Plaintiff VonDeylen received several text messages from the company. Some referenced enabling an autopay feature on her account, while others mentioned an upcoming appointment.
Plaintiff VonDeylen filed suit in federal court alleging the messages violated the TCPA and Minnesota privacy law. Aptive moved to compel arbitration under the service agreement. TCPA readers may recall the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota refused to enforce Aptive’s arbitration agreement, finding the dispute fell outside the arbitration clause.
Aptive appealed. The Eight Circuit emphasized a basic principle—that arbitration is a matter of contract. The key question was whether the plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement’s arbitration provision.
Here, the clause required arbitration of disputes “arising out of or relating to” the agreement, the services provided, or the parties’ relationship. The Eight Circuit noted that this phrase is among the broadest formulations used in arbitration agreements, covering claims with any logical connection to the contractual relationship:
The service agreement sends “any controversy, dispute[,] or claim … arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the services performed by Aptive under this Agreement or any other agreement, or the relationship between [VonDeylen] and Aptive resulting from any of the foregoing” to arbitration. (Emphasis added). As we have recognized, the phrase “arising out of or relating to” is “the broadest language the parties could [have] reasonably use[d].” Parm, 898 F.3d at 874 (citation omitted). It means that VonDeylen’s claims must head to arbitration if they “pertain” or have some logical “connection,” Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 383 (1992), to the parties’ contractual “relationship.” See id. (defining “relating to” as “to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1158 (5th ed. 1979))).
Applying that framework, the court concluded the text messages were connected to the parties’ relationship created by the pest control agreement.
The messages about autopay and account status directly related to account communications contemplated by the contract. Even the messages referencing a technician visit—likely sent in error—could still relate to scheduling or confirming service.
Plaintiff argued that the arbitration clause could not apply because the messages were sent two years after the parties’ service relationship ended.
In rejecting that argument, the Eighth Circuit held the arbitration clause explicitly stated that the obligation to arbitrate survives termination of the agreement, and the contract contained no sunset clause limiting its duration. The court also noted that the clause extended beyond disputes about the agreement itself to include disputes relating to the parties’ “relationship.”
Interpreting the contract as a whole, the court concluded that this language was meant to capture disputes connected to the broader relationship formed by the agreement—even if they arise after services have ended.
So because the alleged TCPA violations were connected to communications stemming from the parties’ contractual relationship, the court held the claims fell within the arbitration clause and reversed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration and stay the case.
This decision is yet another reminder that well drafted arbitration provisions can be a powerful tool for avoiding TCPA class exposure. Companies should ensure their arbitration clauses are written broadly enough to cover disputes relating to the parties’ relationship—including post termination communications—and that the provision expressly survives the end of the contract. If a business plans to rely on customer consent obtained during the account or service relationship, it should also confirm that the arbitration language clearly covers those communications and the parties involved. A carefully drafted arbitration clause can make the difference between resolving a dispute in individual arbitration and defending a costly TCPA class action in federal court.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC