In Craddock v. Beats Music, LLC, 2015 WL 4960041 (N.D.Ill., 2015), Judge Lefkow ordered a TCPA class action to arbitration arising from texts received by a consumer when she signed up for a Beats Music trial offer.

Craddock’s claims are based on her allegation that Beats Music sent her a text message, through AT & T Mobility, LLC, alerting her to a special offer and directing her to Beats Music’s website. These allegations arise from the Policies, as the term is defined in the Terms of Use. Indeed, the Terms of Use section titled “AT & T Offers” discusses special offers available to qualifying AT & T customers (dkt. 24 Exh. 5 § 9), and the “Privacy Policy,” which is incorporated by reference into the Terms of Use, discloses that Beats Music may share information regarding its users “with strategic business partners in order to send communications to you about promotions, special offers, and products that may be of interest to you.” (Dkt 33 Exh. 1 § 5.) Presumably, the text message to which Craddock objects came about as a result of the special offers and information-sharing procedures discussed in these provisions. Further, Craddock’s claims relate to Beats Music’s “Service.” The parties agree that Beats Music obtained Craddock’s cell phone number when she registered for the free trial and downloaded the cell phone application. Thus, in this sense, Craddock’s claims relate to the “Service” because that term is defined to “include[ ] any version of the Beats Music … application.” (See Dkt. 24 Exh. 5 § 1.) Further, the fact that the text message referenced a “special offer” and directed Craddock to Beats Music’s website supports the proposition that Craddock’s claims should be arbitrated–indeed, the term “Service” extends to “any version of the Beats Music website.” (See id.) Given the broad reach of the contractual terms at issue, it cannot be said “with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.” Gore, 666 F.3d at 1032 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).  Craddock argues that her claims should not be arbitrated because her registration for the free trial is, at most, a but-for cause of the text message, which is insufficient to invoke the arbitration clause. Controlling authority, however, makes clear that Craddock’s claims are sufficiently related to the services offered by Beats Music. In Andermann v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 785 F.3d 1157 (7th Cir.2015), the plaintiffs obtained mobile phone service from U.S. Cellular, and their contract contained an arbitration clause providing that “any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to” the contract would be resolved by binding arbitration. Id. at 1158. The contract also provided that U.S. Cellular could assign the agreement without the plaintiffs’ consent, and U.S. Cellular did just that in May 2013, selling the contract (complete with the arbitration clause) to Sprint. Id. Sprint sent a letter to the plaintiffs a few months later notifying them of the sale and informing them that their mobile service would be terminated on January 31, 2014 because their cell phones were not compatible with Sprint’s network. Id. In December, Sprint placed six phone calls to the plaintiffs reminding them that their service was about to expire and adding that it had offers and devices available to suit their needs. Id. The plaintiffs filed suit, alleging that Sprint had violated the TCPA in placing the calls, and Sprint moved to compel arbitration under the arbitration clause in the contract between the plaintiffs and U.S. Cellular. Id. The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, but the Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the contract was intimately related to the plaintiffs’ claims. Id. Specifically, the court explained that “[t]he contract authorized an assignment, and because of the incompatibility of the assignor’s … cellphones and the assignee’s … mobile phone network, Sprint had had to terminate the U.S. Cellular customers,” including the plaintiffs. Id. at 1158–59. Because the purpose of the calls was to inform the plaintiffs of substitute service, the plaintiff’s claims based on the calls were related to the assignment provision in the contract and thus subject to arbitration. Id. at 1159. Similarly, here, Craddock’s downloading of the application gave rise to the text message at issue, and the content of the message itself referred to Beats Music’s website, which is included in the definition of “Service” set forth in the Terms of Use. Craddock’s claims must be arbitrated