Still, David v. Wayfair Inc.

── Still, David v. Wayfair Inc. ── Court: Supreme Court of Delaware Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DAVID STILL, § § No. 353, 2025 Plaintiff Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. N25A-06-002 WAYFAIR INC.,1 § § Defendant Below, § Appellee. § Submitted: February 13, 2026 Decided: April 14, 2026 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices. ORDER (1) This action arises from appellant David Still’s purchase of a sofa for approximately $1,800 through Wayfair, LLC’s website in 2024. After the sofa was delivered, Still was dissatisfied with the firmness of the sofa cushions. Wayfair offered Still a partial refund of $300, suggesting that Still could obtain replacement cushions from an alternative source. Still rejected that proposal. Wayfair later refunded the full purchase price and attempted to schedule a return of the sofa. Still refused to schedule the pick up, retaining possession of the refund and the sofa. 1 The appellee contends, and the appellant concedes, that Wayfair Inc. is not the correct party and that the correct appellee is Wayfair, LLC. We have retained the caption that is consistent with the Superior Court record and the notice of appeal.  (2) In November 2024, Still filed a ten-count complaint in the Court of Common Pleas alleging that Wayfair’s advertising, communications, and refund issuance violated various state and federal statutes and that Wayfair breached the implied warranty of merchantability. On April 11, 2025, the Court of Common Pleas granted Wayfair’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the Court of Common Pleas was not the appropriate venue under a forum-selection clause included in Wayfair’s terms of use, to which Still agreed when placing his order. The court later denied Still’s motion for reargument. (3) Still appealed to the Superior Court, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. Reviewing Still’s claims in accordance with 10 Del. C. § 8803(b), 2 the Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the claims were factually and legally frivolous. The Superior Court later denied Still’s motion for reargument.3 Still has appealed to this Court. (4) On appeal, Still first argues that the Superior Court erred by mischaracterizing his claims as a “‘sofa comfort’ dispute” and disregarding his allegation that Wayfair’s “‘browserwrap agreement’ and other ‘dark patterns’” constituted “manipulative e-commerce designs subverting [Still’s] consent” to 2 See 10 Del. C. § 8803(b) (“Upon establishing the amount of fees and costs to be paid, the court shall review the complaint. Upon such review, the complaint shall be dismissed if the court finds the action is factually frivolous, malicious or, upon a court’s finding that the action is legally frivolous and that even a pro se litigant, acting with due diligence, should have found well settled law disposing of the issue(s) raised. . . .”). 3 Still v. Wayfair, Inc., 2025 WL 1992882 (Del. Super. Ct. July 17, 2025). 2 Wayfair’s terms of use.4 More specifically, he contends that Wayfair’s use of “browserwrap design,” hyperlinks, non-negotiable provisions, and other design features of Wayfair’s website rendered the terms of use unenforceable. This argument does not warrant reversal because the Superior Court’s dismissal was not based on the foru