We previously wrote about a Ninth Circuit appeal taken by Verizon Wireless, Inc. after a California district court judge held that its arbitration agreement, which required mass arbitration disputes to be resolved by multiple rounds of bellwether arbitrations, was substantively unconscionable because it effectively eliminated the claims of thousands of Verizon customers who were required to wait for up to 156 years for the bellwether arbitrations to conclude. … Continue Reading
Recently, 93 members of Congress (all Democrats) signed a letter in support of the pending Petition for Rulemaking filed by consumer advocacy groups in September that would prohibit pre-dispute consumer arbitration clauses and permit only post-dispute clauses. The letter argues that the proposed rulemaking is “much-needed” to protect consumers from “forced arbitration clauses in the fine print, take-it-or-leave-it terms accompanying many financial products and services.”… Continue Reading
Recently, Professor Sovern replied to our blog post that commented on the letter that he and 160 other law academicians submitted to the CFPB in support of the pending Petition for Rulemaking that would prohibit pre-dispute consumer arbitration clauses and permit only post-dispute clauses.
In response, we would like to acknowledge that two of Professor Sovern’s statements are accurate. … Continue Reading
We previously reported and released a podcast episode on comments that we and Professor David Sherwyn of Cornell University submitted in opposition to the Petition for Rulemaking filed by a number of consumer advocacy groups urging the CFPB to prohibit pre-dispute consumer arbitration clauses and allow only post-dispute clauses. Among other things, we argued that the rule proposed by the Petitioners would be prohibited by the Congressional Review Act (CRA) because it is substantially the same as the Final Arbitration Rule promulgated by the CFPB in July 2017 that Congress overrode in November 2017. … Continue Reading
We previously blogged about an Illinois federal district court order requiring Samsung to pay about $4 million in arbitration fees in connection with 35,000 individual arbitration demands filed as part of a “mass arbitration.” By way of update, Samsung is pursuing an appeal to the Seventh Circuit, which recently granted Samsung’s motion for a stay of the district court’s order pending appeal. … Continue Reading
A Rhode Island federal district court recently refused to enforce a stand-alone class action waiver in the consumer plaintiff’s automobile lease agreement on the ground that it violates state public policy. The court in Metcalfe v. Grieco Hyundai LLC held that the class action waiver contravened Section 6-13.1-5.2 of Rhode Island’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), which provides that consumers “may … bring an action on behalf of themselves and other similarly injured and situated persons to recover damages.” … Continue Reading
Earlier this month, in Fama v. Opportunity Financial LLC, a Magistrate Judge of the federal district court for the Western District of Washington held that the arbitration provision in OppFi’s installment loan agreement is enforceable and rejected the plaintiff’s contentions that the provision is substantively and procedurally unconscionable. This is the third federal district court decision—out of four putative class actions filed to date against OppFi by the same plaintiff’s counsel stating the same claims—to compel arbitration of the named plaintiff’s individual claims.… Continue Reading
Currently, California trial court proceedings are automatically stayed when a party appeals an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. However, on October 10, 2023, Governor Newsom signed California Senate Bill No. 365 (SB365) into law.
Effective January 1, 2024, SB365 will amend California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1294 to state that “the perfecting of such an appeal [of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration] shall not automatically stay any proceedings in the trial court during the pendency of the appeal.”… Continue Reading
Last week, a group of consumer advocate organizations filed a Petition for Rulemaking with the CFPB that would prohibit the use of pre-dispute arbitration clauses in consumer contracts in favor of arbitration clauses that would permit consumers to choose between arbitration and litigation only after a dispute has arisen. We published a blog last Friday in which we enumerated the many flaws in the Petition and urged the CFPB to reject it.… Continue Reading
Earlier this week, a group of consumer advocate organizations filed a Petition for Rulemaking with the CFPB that would prohibit the use of pre-dispute arbitration clauses in consumer contracts in favor of arbitration clauses that would permit consumers to choose between arbitration and litigation only after a dispute has arisen. There are numerous compelling reasons why the CFPB should not engage in such rulemaking.… Continue Reading