In its previous three terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has built a wall of major rulings enforcing bilateral contracts that would ban class actions in arbitrations: Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds Int’l, 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010); AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011); and CompuCredit. v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665 (2012). Those decisions recognize that, under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., class arbitration is a matter of contract, and therefore arbitration agreements must be enforced “in accordance with the terms of the agreement.” Stolt-Nielsen and Concepcion also have emphasized “the fundamental changes brought about by the shift from bilateral arbitration to class-action arbitration,” Stolt-Nielsen, which “make[] the [arbitration] process slower, more costly, and more likely to generate procedural morass than final judgment,” Concepcion.
These distinctions cast doubt on the notion that a party can be deemed to have agreed to class arbitration merely by agreeing to bilateral arbitration.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
