In a recent guest post, Professor Mark Budnitz voiced support for Professor Jeff Sovern’s recent proposal that the CFPB issue a rule barring the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements unless consumers opt in to them.  He claims it is the “only fair method” for contracting with consumers because “consumers cannot know, pre-dispute, which forum is

On June 11, the American Bankers Association and the Consumer Bankers Association, represented by Ballard Spahr, filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in HRB Tax Group, Inc. v. Snarr that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt California’s McGill

Professor Jeff Sovern responded to our blog criticizing his proposal for a new CFPB arbitration rule by asserting that his proposed rule is not substantially the same as the prior CFPB rule that Congress vetoed and, therefore, the Congressional Review Act would not bar its promulgation.  According to Professor Sovern: “I don’t see how my

Professor Jeff Sovern recently proposed that the CFPB issue a supposedly “new” arbitration rule “that prevents companies from blocking consumers from suing in court unless consumers specifically opted in to the arbitration clause” after being given a CFPB-mandated disclosure that if they do not sign and their rights are violated, they “may still sue us

For the second time in two years, the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California law (the “McGill Rule”) which invalidates arbitration agreements that waive the right of consumers to seek public injunctive relief.  This time, however, there are changed circumstances that increase the odds

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143 on May 17, 2021.  The question presented is “[w]hether federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the [Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)] where the only basis for jurisdiction is that

Consumer advocates often contend that Congress should prohibit arbitration agreements with class action waivers because servicemembers and other consumers need class actions to effectuate their statutory rights.  However, a report issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to Congress last month contains data that refutes that argument.

The GAO report studied the impact of mandatory

After reviewing the legal developments leading to this surging litigation phenomenon and describing its use by plaintiffs’ attorneys, we discuss the courts’ position on mass arbitration, short-and long-term strategies for companies to consider in addressing the risks of mass arbitration demands, including revisions to arbitration agreements, changes to AAA’s fee schedule, and policy implications.

Ballard

A litigation phenomenon that has recently surged is the simultaneous filing of hundreds or even thousands of individual arbitration demands against the same company by the same law firm, requiring the company to pay the substantial up-front filing fees typically charged by arbitration administrators.  Initially used in the context of employment arbitration claims, such “mass

Proposed legislation now working its way through the New Jersey Senate would eliminate the eligibility of postsecondary students and other individuals for State student assistance, training and employment services, including grants, scholarships and loans, if the school or training provider requires students to sign enrollment contracts that include “forced arbitration and other restrictive clauses, including