Bates v. Sephora USA CA1/2

Filed 7/31/25 Bates v. Sephora USA CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

SHELBY BATES, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171920 v. SEPHORA USA, INC., (San Francisco County Superior Ct. No. CPF-24-518617) Defendant and Appellant.

Sephora USA, Inc. appeals from an order granting Shelby Bates’s petition for arbitration. Because the order is not appealable, we dismiss the appeal.1 BACKGROUND Sephora sells personal care and beauty products online and in its stores. Since 2007, Sephora has offered customers the opportunity to participate in its “Beauty Insider loyalty program” (Beauty Insiders), which allows members to earn points that are redeemable for rewards like discounts

1 Although a party has the right to oral argument in an appeal

“ ‘considered on the merits and decided by a written opinion’ ” (Moles v. Regents of University of California (1982) 32 Cal.3d 867, 871, italics added; accord, Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1254–1255), we dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits. Therefore, the parties’ requests for oral argument are denied.

1

and product samples. Members of Beauty Insiders can also provide information such as “Skin Type,” “Skin Tone,” and “Age Range” to receive personalized recommendations for care and beauty products. In August 2012, Bates joined Sephora’s Beauty Insider program by agreeing to the then-effective terms and conditions, which did not include an arbitration provision but allowed Sephora to modify the terms and conditions of the program “in its sole discretion.” As relevant here, Sephora updated the terms and conditions in September 2023 to require resolution of disputes through individual arbitration with JAMS.2 On March 14, 2024, Sephora again updated the program terms and conditions; this time, Sephora removed the arbitration provision that had been added in September 2023.3 On the morning of March 15, 2024, Sephora notified all of its Beauty Insiders of the updated terms and services via e-mail. That afternoon, 11,210 individuals, including Bates, submitted identical arbitration demands, claiming Sephora’s personalized recommendations constituted race- and age- based discrimination in violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51, subds. (a), (b)). The following day, March 16, thousands more individuals filed identical demands for arbitration. All told, 13,420 Beauty