United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-2672 PILAR DOMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MENARD, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 3:22-cv-00444-jdp — James D. Peterson, Chief Judge. ____________________

ARGUED JANUARY 25, 2024 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 3, 2024 ____________________

Before HAMILTON, BRENNAN, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Pilar Domer submitted an online order to pick up a can of paint at a Menards home improve- ment store. Menards charged Domer a $1.40 fee for the pickup service she selected. Domer commenced this putative class ac- tion, alleging that Menards had not disclosed the pickup ser- vice fee and used the fee to manipulate its prices. Menards 2 No. 23-2672 moved to compel arbitration of Domer’s claims. The district court granted Menards’s motion, finding that the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement and that Domer’s claims fell within its scope. Domer appealed, arguing that the arbitration agreement was invalid and unenforceable, and in any event did not cover her claims. We affirm the district court. Menards has shown that its website provided reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to which Domer would be bound and Domer un- ambiguously manifested her assent to those terms. Addition- ally, each of Domer’s claims arise from or relate to the contract between Domer and Menards. So, Domer’s claims are within the scope of the arbitration agreement. I Menard, Inc. is a home improvement retail company that sells goods through brick-and-mortar stores and on its web- site. 1 Customers who purchase products online have three op- tions for receiving their goods. They may go to a local store and locate the item on the shelf, pay a small fee to have a Menards employee locate the item on the shelf and prepare it for pickup, or have the product shipped to their home. Domer visited the Menards website to purchase a can of paint. Before checking out, she chose option three on the web- site: to have an employee retrieve the correct item from the shelf, prepare it for pickup at the Menards store in Valparaiso, Indiana, and place it at the pickup counter. In exchange for that service, Menards would charge her a $1.40 per item fee.

1 Menards is owned by the defendant Menard, Inc. For clarity this opinion uses “Menards” throughout, as did the district court. No. 23-2672 3

After Domer selected the pickup option, the website pre- sented her with the final page in the online checkout process:

As shown, the page presented a summary of Domer’s transaction. It included one shaded, bordered box listing her “Billing & Credit Card Information” and an adjoining column with her “Order Summary.” The “Billing & Credit Card Infor- mation” listed her payment information. The box also pre- sented options to receive text updates on the status of her or- der and to use a gift card. The “Order Summary” column listed four line-items: the “Merchandise Subtotal” (the price of the items purchased); the “Processing Fees” (the pickup service fee); the “Sales Tax”; and the “Total” cost. In addition, the “Order Summary” column included a sentence explaining how much money Domer had saved on her purchase, the op- tion to submit her purchase, and a couple of sentences adver- tising the Menards credit card. 4 No. 23-2672

The same page included an additional note to purchasers immediately below the “Billing