A customer uses an Apple Inc. iPhone to make a payment on a Square Inc. device in San Francisco. (Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg)

The California Supreme Court on Monday breathed new life into a bankruptcy lawyer’s proposed class action claiming Square Inc. violates a state civil rights law by barring bankruptcy professionals from using its online service to process payments.

On Monday, the California Supreme Court held that “visiting a website with intent to use its services is, for purposes of standing, equivalent to presenting oneself for services at a brick-and-mortar store” under the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

“Although mere awareness of a business’s discriminatory policy or practice is not enough for standing under the Act, entering into an agreement with the business is not required,” wrote Justice Goodwin Liu for the court in a unanimous opinion.

The case had drawn considerable amicus interest, with the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys and a coalition of disability and consumer rights groups backing San Francisco bankruptcy lawyer Robert White, and the Internet Association, with counsel from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan name partner Kathleen Sullivan, backing Square.

White sued Square in 2015 claiming that the company’s policy of excluding bankruptcy attorneys from using its payment services defies the California Unruh Act, which protects Californians from discrimination by businesses. White claimed that Square’s user agreement requiring new account holders to assure that they won’t accept payments on behalf of “bankruptcy attorneys or collection agencies engaged in the collection of debt” amounted to “occupational discrimination” against bankruptcy lawyers under the act. The suit, brought on behalf of a nationwide class of bankruptcy lawyers, brings significant potential damages since the the law carries statutory penalties of at least $4,000 per violation.

Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed White’s claims in 2016, finding that he didn’t have standing to sue, since he hadn’t actually attempted to sign up for an account after reviewing Square’s policies. But last year on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the California Supreme Court in White’s case: “Does a plaintiff suffer discriminatory conduct, and thus have statutory standing to bring a claim under the Unruh Act, when the plaintiff visits a business’s website with the intent of using its services, encounters terms and conditions that deny the plaintiff full and equal access to its services, and then departs without entering into an agreement with the service provider?”

On Monday, the California Supreme Court answered “yes” to that question.

Myron Moskovitz of the Moskovitz Appellate Team, who represents White alongside William McGrane of McGrane PC, said Monday that the holding is “broad” and significant, considering that Square and its tech allies were arguing that online businesses should be held to a different standard than brick-and-mortar stores when it comes to Unruh Act claims.

“This case is about standing, ostensibly, but it’s really about immunity,” Moskovitz said. “If someone like Mr. White doesn’t have standing to challenge Square’s discriminatory policy, then Square is effectively immune from Unruh Act claims.”

Moskovitz noted that bankruptcy lawyers were at No. 28 on the list of exclusions in Square’s terms of service, including those accepting payment for pornography and firearms.

“Some of these are lawful occupations,” said Moskovitz, adding that others excluded from the service might follow White in filing suit.

A representative from Square said the company had no comment on the decision. Munger, Tolles & Olson’s Fred Rowley Jr. argued for the company at the California Supreme Court. The company is also represented by counsel at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.