Litigation & Arbitration – Page 4

Proposed Arbitration Fairness Act Would Ban Pre-Dispute Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Contracts

May 05 2015

By Andrew C. Glass, Robert W. Sparkes, III, Roger L. Smerage, Eric W. Lee

Two members of Congress are seeking to expand the reach of a federal ban on pre-dispute arbitration agreements to cover nearly all consumer contracts. The proposed legislation would have a widespread effect, barring the use of pre-dispute arbitration provisions in credit card agreements, auto loan agreements, wireless telephone service contracts, and many other types of consumer-facing agreements that often contain such provisions.

On April 29, 2015, Senator Al Franken (D-Minnesota) and Representative Hank Johnson (D-Georgia) introduced the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2015 (“AFA”) (S. 1133; H.R. 2087). The proposed legislation would amend the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. (“FAA”), to prohibit parties from entering into agreements to arbitrate consumer disputes in advance of a dispute arising. The bar on pre-dispute arbitration agreements would also apply in the context of employer, antitrust, and civil rights disputes.

Client of Blast Fax Solutions Provider Hit with $22 Million TCPA Judgment

Apr 13 2015

By Joseph C. Wylie II, Molly K. McGinley, and Nicole C. Mueller

A new decision once again highlights the dangers that companies face if their independent contractors engage in conduct that violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and highlights the need to monitor contractor compliance with the TCPA. In City Select Auto Sales, Inc. v. David/Randall Assocs., Inc., a federal court in New Jersey recently found a roofing company, David/Randall Associates, liable for $22.4 million under the TCPA for the actions of its blast fax solutions provider, Business to Business Solutions (B2B). The plaintiff had alleged that the roofer and its president were liable for the transmission of fax advertisements 44,832 times to 29,113 different fax numbers by its independent contractor, B2B, without obtaining the prior express invitation or permission of the recipients and without including an FCC-required opt-out notice.

Supreme Court Won’t Review Class Arbitrability Question Now, But Second Circuit May Hear Case That Could Generate Circuit Split

Mar 11 2015

By Andrew C. Glass and Roger L. Smerage

The United States Supreme Court recently declined to review a Third Circuit decision holding that ordinarily a court, not an arbitrator, determines the availability of classwide arbitration. Opalinski v. Robert Half International, Inc. 761 F.3d 326 (3d Cir. 2014), cert. denied No. 14-625, — S. Ct. —-, 2015 WL 998611 (U.S. Mar. 9, 2015). The Opalinski decision is important to businesses that use consumer arbitration agreements. The benefits of traditional, individual arbitration – such as lower costs, confidentiality, and the limited scope of an arbitrator’s award – are typically not present in class arbitration. Having a judge, rather than an arbitrator, make the decision of whether to compel individual or class arbitration is meaningful because a judge’s ruling is subject to the regular appellate review process, while an arbitrator’s ruling is subject to only very limited judicial review.

Catagory:Litigation & Arbitration