We previously wrote about a California federal district court decision in Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment that denied Ticketmaster’s motion to compel arbitration of Sherman Act antitrust claims based in large part on the bellwether procedures for mass arbitration claims set forth in the company’s arbitration clause. That decision has now been affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.… Continue Reading
arbitration
CFPB bans private dispute resolution platform Ejudicate from arbitrating consumer financial product disputes
The CFPB has banned private dispute resolution platform Ejudicate from arbitrating disputes about consumer financial products, saying that the company had misled student borrowers about the company’s neutrality and initiated sham arbitration proceedings.
The CFPB said that Ejudicate initiated those proceedings on behalf of the company Prehired—a firm which was shut down in 2023 by the CFPB and several state attorneys general, in part on the grounds that its income share agreements were illegal loans and its income share agreement program involved illegal lending practices.… Continue Reading
SCOTUS: District court must stay, not dismiss, action when compelling arbitration
The U.S. Supreme Court has held unanimously in Smith v. Spizzirri that when a district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute and a party has requested a stay of the court proceedings pending arbitration, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) compels the court to issue a stay of the suit; the court lacks jurisdiction to dismiss the suit on the basis that all of the claims are subject to arbitration. … Continue Reading
Lawmakers and AFSA oppose future arbitration rulemaking
In connection with the petition to ban pre-dispute consumer arbitration agreements pending before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “forced arbitration,” Congressman Andy Barr (R-Ky.) and Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and the American Financial Services Association (AFSA) have voiced their strong opposition to further regulation of consumer arbitration. … Continue Reading
442 Congress members did NOT join anti-arbitration letter to CFPB
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
Professor Sovern’s reply underscores need for consumer education
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
CFPB rulemaking on post-dispute consumer arbitration agreements not mentioned in Fall 2023 rulemaking agenda: is there significance?
As we reported, the CFPB just released its Fall 2023 rulemaking agenda as part of the Fall 2023 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
I have been contacted by many clients who have asked me whether we should read any significance into the fact that the anti-arbitration Petition for Rulemaking submitted to the CFPB by a consortium of consumer advocacy groups on September 13 is not mentioned in the new rulemaking agenda. … Continue Reading
Comment letters from consumer advocates bolster case against CFPB rulemaking on post-dispute arbitration clauses
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
Seventh Circuit stays order requiring Samsung to pay millions in arbitration fees
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
This week’s podcast episode: Prohibited by law and totally ineffective—just two of the many reasons why the CFPB should deny the petition for rulemaking on post-dispute consumer arbitration agreements
Our special guest is David Sherwyn, Professor of Law at Cornell University’s School of Hotel Administration. In September 2023, 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. … Continue Reading