SCOTUS finally delivered its decision today in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the consolidated case that addresses whether employers can require employees to give up their right to class or consolidated litigation as part of an arbitration agreement.  In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court found that class action waivers are enforceable under the FAA, and nothing in the labor laws preclude that conclusion.

As usual, how the Court frames the question gives away its answer.  Justice Gorsuch began the majority opinion by asking: “Should employees and employers be allowed to agree that any disputes between them will be resolved through one-on-one arbitration?”* In contrast, Justice Ginsburg’s dissent frames the issue as “Does the [FAA] permit employers to insist that their employees, whenever seeking redress for commonly experienced wage loss, go it alone, never mind the right secured to employees by the National Labor Relations Act . . . ‘to engage in . . . concerted activities’ for their ‘mutual aid or protection'”?

The majority opinion started by painting the NLRB’s opposition to class action waivers as a sudden shift after 77 years of peaceful coexistence with the FAA.  It then finds that the NLRA cannot be applied via the savings clause of Section 2 of the FAA because it interferes with one of arbitration’s fundamental attributes — individual resolution — and therefore is not the type of defense that applies to any contract. (It cites Concepcion for the proposition that individual resolution is fundamental to arbitration.)

After finding nothing in the FAA itself that would prevent enforcement of the class action waivers at issue, the majority opinion looks to see if the NLRA clearly and manifestly indicates that Congress intended to override the FAA.  It finds no statutory or contextual evidence of that clear intent.  It also made short work of the employees’ argument for Chevron deference to the NLRB.  [One of the best lines from the opinion is in that section.  Noting that Chevron was based, in part, on the idea that policy choices should be left to the executive branch which voters can hold accountable, the majority writes: “whatever argument might be mustered for deferring to the Executive on grounds of political accountability, surely it becomes a garble when the Executive speaks from both sides of its mouth, articulating no single position on which it might be held accountable.”]

Interestingly, the majority decision acknowledges that there is a vigorous policy debate over the merits of class action waivers in arbitration.  At multiple points during the opinion Justice Gorsuch bows to the possibility that the FAA could be flawed: “You might wonder if the balance Congress struck in 1925 between arbitration and litigation should be revisited in light of more contemporary developments.”  And later “This Court is not free to substitute its preferred economic policies for those chosen by the people’s representatives.”  But each time he returns to the idea that the Court is bound by the law to rigidly enforce arbitration agreements.  In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg agrees that Congress is now the right branch of government to act.  The dissent states: “Congressional correction of the Court’s elevation of the FAA over workers’ rights to act in concert is urgently in order.”

The dissent would hold that Section 7 of the NLRA does guarantee the right to pursue collective litigation and trumps the FAA.  The dissent reviews the text and legislative history of the NLRA to support its conclusion and addresses the majority’s arguments.  What I found most interesting in the dissent, however, was its review of the legislative history behind Section 1 of the FAA.  Apparently, organized labor was concerned about the FAA’s impact, and Herbert Hoover amended the legislation to specifically exclude workers’ contracts.  Congress passed the amended version and labor withdrew its opposition.  [Justice Ginsburg’s research on that topic may come in handy next term when the Court addresses the New Prime case.]

This is the result that everyone expected based on oral argument and the current politics of the court.  But still, when I read the “Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court,” I can’t help feeling like it should say “Justice Gorsuch delivered on President Trump’s promises of a conservative court.”  Would it have been better to just let the new appointments to the NLRB reverse the Board’s course of action, much like the reversals of other agencies, and save the Court from this particular insertion into politics?

*  (Do you hear that growly “one on one” from this song when you read that?   Maybe it’s just me.)

 

Today the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in another case involving the Federal Arbitration Act.  The case, Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, comes from the Ninth Circuit and raises a variation of the question from Sutter: how clear does an arbitration agreement need to be to show the parties authorized class arbitration?

My initial summary of the Ninth Circuit opinion is here.  It didn’t even merit an entire post of its own, but shared time with another circuit court opinion.  In my view, the issue of class arbitration has largely been hammered out.  SCOTUS ruled in Stolt-Nielsen that class arbitration is only allowed if the parties’ arbitration agreement authorizes it.  More recently, courts have generally concluded that courts, not arbitrators, should decide whether the parties’ arbitration agreement allows for class arbitration.  Finally, state law governs the question of how to interpret whether the parties’ arbitration agreement authorizes class arbitration.  Yet, now we will have a new decision on whether an interpretation of state law (interpreting ambiguity against a drafter to find class arbitration is authorized) should be preempted by the federal policy favoring arbitration (and particularly, favoring non-class arbitration).

In fact, the other two arbitration cases on SCOTUS’s docket also relate to class actions.  The NLRB case (whether forcing employees to waive their right to class actions in arbitration agreements is a violation of labor statutes) is still under consideration (it was argued last October).  And another upcoming case, New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, stems from a putative class action brought by independent contractors, even though the narrow issue before SCOTUS is whether an arbitrator or court should determine the applicability of the FAA.

If any Supreme Court clerk or justice had called me and asked “what are some of the really hot arbitration questions that this Court should resolve in order to ensure consistent decision-making around the country?,” class arbitration would not have been on my list.  I read every arbitration opinion that issues from the federal circuit courts and state high courts, and the issues I see courts struggling with most often include delegation clauses and issues relating to non-signatories.  Maybe I am not giving enough credit to the few class action opinions that come out (despite the fact that they impact many people), or alternatively maybe the Court’s emphasis on class arbitration highlights a political aspect of the cert process, or a particular interest of a majority of justices, or just the persuasiveness of this team.

 

A new Seventh Circuit case answers the age-old question: if a fourteen-year-old swipes her mom’s credit card to complete a smoothie purchase at the mall, is she bound to the credit card agreement?

The case, A.D. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 1414907 (Mar. 22. 2018), addressed whether the lead plaintiff in a putative TCPA class action was bound to an arbitration agreement.  The lead plaintiff was a teenager when the case was filed, and she alleged that the defendant bank called her cell phone multiple times to collect on her mother’s credit card debt.  (A practice which is precluded by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).)  During the course of discovery, the defendant bank realized that it had linked the teenager’s cell phone number to the mother’s credit card account when the mother used the teen’s cell phone to call the defendant.   It also discovered that the teenager had completed a few smoothie purchases at the mall using her mother’s credit card.  The defendant bank then made a motion to compel arbitration  (and to deny class certification) based on the arbitration agreement in the mother’s cardholder agreement.  The district court granted the motion, but the Seventh Circuit reversed.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit tried to clear up any ambiguity in its previous treatment of cases regarding non-signatories.  It established two analytical steps needed to resolve the arbitrability question: whether the daughter is directly bound by the arbitration agreement; and if not, whether any of the arguments for binding non-signatories apply.

With respect to whether the daughter was bound by the plain language of the arbitration agreement, the Court had no trouble concluding she was not.   The arbitration agreement specifically applied to claims made by authorized users of the account.  The district court had relied on one sentence in the paragraph defining “Authorized Users” of the card: “If you allow someone to use your Account, that person will be an Authorized User.”  That, plus the fact that the mother had ordered smoothies, but then sent her daughter up to the counter to swipe the credit card when the smoothies were ready, led the district court to conclude the daughter was an “authorized user” bound by the cardholder agreement.  The appellate court, however, noted that the full definition of Authorized User required multiple steps for someone to qualify, none of which had been completed for the teenage plaintiff.  Furthermore, the cardholder agreement limited authorized users to people over fifteen, and the relevant state law also did not allow fourteen-year-olds to enter into binding contracts.    Therefore, the Seventh Circuit found the “terms of the cardholder agreement do not bind” the teenage plaintiff.

With respect to the second analytical step, the Court found the principles of equitable estoppel (which can bind non-signatories to arbitration agreement) did not bind the daughter to the cardholder agreement.  Critically, equitable estoppel requires the bank to prove that the teenage daughter received a “direct benefit” from the cardholder agreement.  In this case, the bank’s whole argument hinged on the smoothie.  [I wonder if there was testimony about how much it cost, and how delicious it was!  Did it have vitamin boosters?!]  And the Court was not impressed.  It reasoned:

“any ‘benefit’ that [daughter] received with respect to the credit card was limited to following her mother’s directions to pick up the smoothies that her mother had ordered previously. . . Her mother, [] benefited from the agreement, which allowed her, not [the daughter] to buy the smoothies.”

The Court also concluded that the class action claims did not seek benefits under the cardholder agreement, which would have been a separate basis for estoppel.

As a result, the Seventh Circuit reversed the decision to grant the motion to compel arbitration and directed the district court to reconsider its denial of the class certification as well.

 

Two different panels of the Second Circuit issued opinions about class arbitration on the same day last week.  One creates a circuit split over how specific parties must be to delegate the availability of class arbitration to arbitrators, and the second addresses when bankruptcy law can preempt the federal arbitration act.

In Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Sappington, 2018 WL 1177230 (2d Cir. March 7, 2018), a putative class of former Wells Fargo employees brought suit for unpaid overtime (FLSA).  Wells Fargo moved to compel “bilateral” (individual) arbitration.  The district court denied the motion, finding that the arbitrator was authorized to decide whether class arbitration was available.   The Second Circuit affirmed.

As you may recall from this blog, at least four federal circuit courts have found that whether class arbitration is available is a gateway issue of arbitrability, meaning that it is presumptively for the courts to determine.  (The 8th, 6th, 4th, and 3d.)  And, while parties can delegate gateway issues to the arbitrator if they do so clearly and unmistakably, at least three of those circuits have held that a higher standard applies to the class arbitration issue.  (For example, the Eighth Circuit found that incorporating AAA rules was not sufficient to delegate class arbitrability, while it is sufficient to delegate other gateway issues.)

In the Wells Fargo matter, the Second Circuit “assume[d] without deciding” that the availability of class arbitration is a gateway question.  (Wimps.  Just decide.)  It then considered whether the delegation of that issue to an arbitrator was clear and unmistakable under Missouri law.  One set of plaintiffs had an agreement stating that “any controversy relating to your duty to arbitrate hereunder, or to the validity or enforceability of this arbitration clause, or to any defense to arbitration, shall also be arbitrated.”    The court found that was clear and unmistakable delegation of the class arbitration issue to an arbitrator.

More surprisingly, the court found that a second set of plaintiffs had also clearly and unmistakable delegated class arbitration to an arbitrator, even though their agreement only agreed to arbitrate “any dispute” and adopted either FINRA rules or alternatively 1993 Securities Arbitration Rules of the AAA.  In its analysis, the court noted that because some types of disputes were excluded from arbitration (unemployment), but class arbitration was not excluded, Missouri law would consider it included.  And the court found that more recent iterations of the AAA rules applied, which allow an arbitrator to determine whether a class can proceed.  This decision creates a circuit split on the issue of whether class arbitration is special enough to deserve its own rules for delegation.

As if creating a circuit split on class arbitrability wasn’t exciting enough, the Second Circuit also allowed another putative class action to go forward, despite an arbitration clause.  In In re Anderson, 2018 WL 1177227 (2d Cir. March 7, 2018), Mr. Anderson went through Chapter 7 bankruptcy and his debts were released.  One of those debts was to his credit card company.  However, Mr. Anderson alleged that the credit card company refused to update his credit reports after the bankruptcy.  So, he filed a putative class action.  The credit card moved to compel arbitration under the cardholder agreement, but the bankruptcy court found it was non-arbitrable because it “was a core bankruptcy proceeding that went to the heart of the ‘fresh start’ guaranteed to debtors.”  On appeal, the Second Circuit agreed.

In today’s post, we pick up where the 4th Circuit left off a few weeks ago — with federal circuit courts finding ways to avoid enforcing arbitration agreements that are obtained years after litigation has commenced.

In Dasher v. RBC Bank (USA), __ F3d. ___, 2018 WL 832855 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018), the plaintiffs alleged the bank had processed debit card transactions in such a way that it would increase overdraft charges.  Although the date is not listed, the case appears to have begun in 2009.  During the course of the litigation, the first bank was acquired by another bank (“new bank”) and issued new customer account agreements in 2012 which lacked arbitration agreements.  A motion to compel based on the arbitration clause in the earlier agreement was denied, and the new bank appealed.  At about the same time, the new bank sent customers an amended agreement that included an arbitration provision.  The amended agreement was effective in February 2013.

The new bank lost its appeal.  After the case was remanded to district court, the new bank again moved to compel arbitration, this time based on the February 2013 amendment.  The motion was made in December of 2014.  The district court denied the motion, finding the new bank had waived its right to arbitrate under the 2013 amendment.

On appeal, the 11th Circuit agreed that the new bank could not compel arbitration, but for a different reason.  It held that the new bank failed to prove that the parties had agreed to the 2013 amendment.  The opinion found that under North Carolina law, it could consider the parties’ words and actions to determine whether the parties intended to amend the 2012 customer agreement.  And here, it concluded that the named plaintiff gave mixed responses to the proposed 2013 amendment.  Through counsel, the named plaintiff was fighting the motion to arbitrate in the courts.  But his “uncounseled response” was silence.  The court was clearly bothered by the fact that the new bank sent its proposed amendment directly to all of its customers, without advising either the plaintiffs’ attorney or the court.  Therefore, while it did not want to write “an ethics opinion,” it still refused to find the 2013 amendment was enforceable.

This is an important decision for many reasons.  First, it offers future courts an alternative argument to  “waiver” in situations like this one.  (As the 4th Circuit decision showed, waiver didn’t seem to sit well.)  Second, it offers an important reminder to defendants that courts do not take kindly to repeated motions to compel arbitration based on evolving arbitration agreements.  While they may be willing to overlook it if the “redo” motion is due to a change in the legal landscape, that’s probably the only good reason.  That means the left hand (the litigators and the in-house counsel overseeing them) always need to know what the right hand (whomever is deciding what goes in the customer contracts) is doing.

In a recent opinion, the Fourth Circuit cited waiver as its basis to refuse to compel arbitration, but the result seems animated by a sense that the arbitration agreements were unenforceable.  Degidio v. Crazy Horse Saloon & Restaurant, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 456905 (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2018).

The case involved a putative collective and class action case by “exotic dancers” at a club in South Carolina, alleging they were wrongly classified as independent contractors and thereby denied minimum wages and other statutory protections.  The complaint was filed against the club in August of 2013.  [I can’t call it a saloon.  We aren’t in the wild west.]  At that point, it is undisputed that none of the potential plaintiffs had arbitration agreements with the club.

The club participated in discovery for a year.  In November and December 2014, the club obtained arbitration agreements with some of its dancers “as a condition of performing.”  In December of 2014, the club moved for summary judgment on the merits, arguing the dancers were properly classified as independent contractors.  Then in January of 2015, the club brought a motion to compel arbitration against plaintiffs who had signed arbitration agreements.  The district court denied the motion, raising concerns about the enforceability of the arbitration agreements.  The club brought a new summary judgment motion on the merits in October of 2015.  When that was denied, the club sought additional discovery on the merits, attempted to certify questions to the South Carolina Supreme Court, and then moved to compel arbitration against nine plaintiffs who had opted into the litigation after its last motion.  That motion was also denied.

The Fourth Circuit set the stage for its discussion by noting that litigants may waive their rights to arbitration by “substantially utilizing the litigation machinery.”  Without citing any further case law about waiver, the opinion proceeded to review the significant extent of the club’s use of “litigation machinery” (summarized above).  The court was particularly upset at the apparent gamesmanship:

The only possible purpose of the arbitration agreements, then, was to give [the club] an option to revisit the case in the event that the district court issued an unfavorable opinion [on summary judgment].  In other words, Crazy Horse did not seek to use arbitration as an efficient alternative to litigation; it instead used arbitration as an insurance policy in an attempt to give itself a second opportunity to evade liability.

In response to the club’s argument that it could not have moved to compel arbitration until the entertainers who had actually signed the agreements opted into the case, the court suggested that it should have informed the district court of its intentions so that the court did not waste judicial resources.  In addition, the court did not want to “give defendants a perverse incentive to wait as long as possible to compel arbitration.”

At the close of this waiver discussion, the court veers into what seems to be the heart of the matter: its conclusion that the arbitration agreements were “misleading” and “sham agreements.”  The arbitration agreements told the dancers that they only reason they could keep tips and set their own schedules was because they were independent contractors, and that would change if they joined the Degidio lawsuit.  The court noted that information was false.  Furthermore, the court was upset that the agreements were presented to plaintiffs “in a furtive manner,” evading the district court’s ability to supervise contact between the potential plaintiffs and counsel.  “The setting here was ripe for duress.”  However, the court does not undertake any analysis of unconscionability or other bases to find the agreements unenforceable under South Carolina law.  It just affirms the decision to deny the motion to compel arbitration.

I find this a puzzling case.  Normally, parties are allowed to agree to arbitrate a dispute that has already begun.  And litigation conduct before that agreement can’t count as a waiver.  Furthermore, parties don’t usually tell the judge about motions that they don’t yet have a basis to bring.  So, unless FLSA cases are really so different, this seems like a case that should have been analyzed on the validity of the arbitration agreements.  It is decidedly underhanded to convince people to sign arbitration agreements by misrepresenting the law.  Maybe South Carolina unconscionability doctrines are very difficult?

Last Thursday, the Second Circuit found that the arbitration agreement in Uber’s Terms of Service was conspicuous enough to be binding and enforceable.  As a result, the claims of a putative class of consumers will be dismissed unless they can show that Uber waived its right to arbitrate their claims.  Meyer v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2017 WL 3526682 (2d Cir. Aug. 17, 2017).  [This proves my point from last week, that formation is one of the big issues this year in arbitration law.]

For those of you who still take yellow taxis, Uber is a “ride-hailing service,” where customers use an “app” on their smart phones to alert a nearby Uber driver that the customer wants a ride to a specific location. Critically to this case, when customers open an account with Uber, they see black text at the bottom of the registration screen advising that “by creating an Uber account, you agree to the TERMS OF SERVICE & PRIVACY POLICY.”  The phrase “terms of service” is in blue font and hyperlinked to a page where the customer can read those terms.  The terms include an arbitration agreement that waives the right to any class or consolidated action.

A potential class of Uber customers started a lawsuit in New York alleging that Uber allows illegal price fixing.  In response, Uber first moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  Upon losing that motion, Uber moved to compel arbitration and the federal district court denied that motion also, finding that the parties never formed an arbitration agreement because the consumers did not meaningfully consent.

On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded.  It applied California contract law in its de novo review, and applied California’s rule that a customer who lacks actual notice of the terms of an agreement can be bound if a “reasonably prudent user would be on inquiry notice of the terms.”  In its analysis, the court noted that Uber did not use a “clickwrap” agreement, which involves consumers having to click “I agree” after being presented with a list of terms and conditions, and which is “routinely uph[e]ld” by courts.  Even so, the court concluded that the design of the registration screens were clear enough to put the plaintiff on inquiry notice of the arbitration provision.  What were those design features?

  • Hyperlinked text to terms and conditions appears right below the registration button;
  • The entire screen is visible at once (no scrolling required);
  • The screen is “uncluttered”; and
  • Although font is “small,” dark print contrasts with white background.

Therefore, the Second Circuit concluded that the named plaintiff “agreed to arbitrate his claims with Uber.”  However, the Court threw the class a bone by remanding on the question of whether Uber waived its right to arbitrate by bringing the motion to dismiss on the merits.

What’s fascinating about this opinion is not just that Uber is a famous company that is facing intriguing antitrust allegation.  No, what’s fascinating from the arbitration angle is that the Second Circuit came out on the opposite side of this same issue almost exactly one year ago in Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2016 WL 4473225 (Aug. 25, 2016).  The same judge wrote both opinions.

In Nicosia, the named class representative had placed an order on Amazon in 2012.  Instead of a true “clickwrap” agreement, there was simply language on the Order Page stating that “by placing your order, you agree to Amazon.com’s privacy notice and conditions of use.” The conditions of use were hyperlinked to the relevant terms.  Sounds pretty much the same as Uber’s setup, right?  Well, applying Washington law, the Second Circuit found that reasonable minds could differ about whether that notice was sufficiently conspicuous to be binding.  It complained that the critical sentence was in a “smaller font,” that there were too many other distracting things taking place on the order page (summary of purchase and delivery information, suggestions to try Amazon Locker, opportunity to enter gift cards and have a free trial of Amazon Prime, for example.)  There were other links on the page, in different colors and fonts.  Critically, it found “[n]othing about the’Place your order’ button alone suggests that additional terms apply, and the presentation of terms is not directly adjacent to the ‘Place your Order” button…”  Therefore, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal based on the arbitration provision.

As the fundamental context of on-line purchases has not changed in the last year, and the Second Circuit’s recitation of California and Washington law appears pretty similar, one has to conclude that the difference between these two cases is the graphic design of the key pages.  In particular, the level of “clutter” on Amazon’s page is the primary difference-maker between these two cases.  I imagine many internet retailers will reconsider the number of fonts, colors, and promotions on their final “order” pages this next week…

 

Class action arbitration continues to be a hot topic among the federal appellate courts this summer.

The 8th Circuit followed the lead of other circuit courts, finding that courts, not arbitrators, presumptively decide whether the parties’ arbitration agreement allows for class arbitration. Catamaran Corporation v. Towncrest Pharmacy, 2017 WL 3197622 (July 28, 2017).   In support of its decision, the court raised concerns about class arbitration, including loss of confidentiality, due process concerns for absent parties, and a concern about the lack of appellate review.  [Interesting that it didn’t cite any of CFPB’s report on this, but just cited other case law… ] Therefore, unless the parties have “clearly and unmistakably delegated” the class arbitration issue to the arbitrator, a court will decide the issue.  Furthermore, the court said that incorporating the AAA rules is not a clear and unmistakable delegation of the class arbitration decision, even though citing the AAA rules is sufficiently clear in analogous issues in regular “bilateral arbitration.”  The court remanded to the district court to determine whether there was a contractual basis for class arbitration.

Halfway across the country, the 9th Circuit held that employees could bring their claims related to a data breach as a class action in arbitration.  Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 2017 WL 3309944 (Aug. 3, 2017).  The employees had first brought their class claims to federal court, and the employer moved to compel individual arbitration.  The district court found the arbitration agreement was valid, but ambiguous about whether class actions were waived.  Construing that ambiguity against the employer who drafted the agreement, the district court ordered class arbitration.  On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed the finding of ambiguity, sending the class to arbitration as a group.  One judge issued a two sentence dissent, noting “we should not allow Varela to enlist us in this palpable evasion of Stolt-Nielsen

The CFPB today issued a consumer-friendly rule that is likely to significantly curtail the use of arbitration in consumer financial agreements.  That rule has two major components.  First, it prohibits institutions from relying on arbitration clauses to avoid class actions.  And second, it mandates the submission of redacted data on consumer financial arbitrations that will be accessible on the internet.

The rule was originally proposed in May of 2016, roughly a year after the CFPB issued its report on the use of arbitration in the financial industry.  During the required 90-day period, the CFPB received around 110,000 public comments on its proposal.  Yet, the CFPB waited over a year to finalize and issue the rule.  During that time, President Trump took office and his administration reversed course on three previous arbitration-related rules/positions from the Obama Administration.  That context lead to speculation that the CFPB might weaken its proposed rule or otherwise take a safer course.

Yet today the rule was issued and it appears substantially the same as the initial proposal.  Maybe the CFPB wisely spent the past year gearing up for the challenges that similar pro-consumer arbitration rules have faced — like lawsuits challenging the rule’s validity or Congress using its ability to pull the plug on rules within the first 60 days.  Or maybe it just took a year to draft this 775 page behemoth of a rule with all its arguments in favor of its issuance (and responses to its detractors).  (Note that the Trump Administration has been trying to convince a federal court that the President has the authority to fire the CFPB director without cause, which probably did not help any negotiations over the proposed rule.)

In any case, the result is a very far-reaching rule that will likely lead to an uptick in class actions in the financial industry.  It applies to all consumer lending, credit card agreements, auto leases, debt management services, check cashing services, and debt collectors.  Starting six months after the effective date of the rule (assuming no court injunction), it will affect all new agreements within its scope.

The text of the key provisions of the rule follows:

(a) Use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements in class actions—(1) General rule. A

provider shall not rely in any way on a pre-dispute arbitration agreement entered into after the

date set forth in § 1040.5(a) with respect to any aspect of a class action that concerns any of the

consumer financial products or services covered by § 1040.3, including to seek a stay or

dismissal of particular claims or the entire action, unless and until the presiding court has ruled

that the case may not proceed as a class action and, if that ruling may be subject to appellate

review on an interlocutory basis, the time to seek such review has elapsed or such review has

been resolved such that the case cannot proceed as a class action.

(2) Provision required in covered pre-dispute arbitration agreements. Upon entering

into a pre-dispute arbitration agreement for a consumer financial product or service covered by

  • 1040.3 after the date set forth in § 1040.5(a):

(i) Except as provided elsewhere in this paragraph (a)(2) or in § 1040.5(b), a provider

shall ensure that any such pre-dispute arbitration agreement contains the following provision:

“We agree that neither we nor anyone else will rely on this agreement to stop you from being

part of a class action case in court. You may file a class action in court or you may be a member

of a class action filed by someone else.”

(ii) When the pre-dispute arbitration agreement applies to multiple products or services,

only some of which are covered by § 1040.3, the provider may include the following alternative

provision in place of the one required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section: “We are providing

you with more than one product or service, only some of which are covered by the Arbitration

Agreements Rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The following provision

applies only to class action claims concerning the products or services covered by that Rule: We

agree that neither we nor anyone else will rely on this agreement to stop you from being part of a

class action case in court. You may file a class action in court or you may be a member of a

class action filed by someone else.”

(iii) When the pre-dispute arbitration agreement existed previously between other parties

and does not contain either the provision required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section or the

alternative permitted by paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section:

(A) The provider shall either ensure the pre-dispute arbitration agreement is amended to

contain the provision specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this section or provide any

consumer to whom the agreement applies with the following written notice: “We agree not to

rely on any pre-dispute arbitration agreement to stop you from being part of a class action case in

court. You may file a class action in court or you may be a member of a class action filed by

someone else.” When the pre-dispute arbitration agreement applies to multiple products or

services, only some of which are covered by § 1040.3, the provider may, in this written notice,

include the following optional additional language: “This notice applies only to class action

claims concerning the products or services covered by the Arbitration Agreements Rule issued

by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”

(B) The provider shall ensure the pre-dispute arbitration agreement is amended or provide

the notice to consumers within 60 days of entering into the pre-dispute arbitration agreement.

***

(b) Submission of arbitral and court records. For any pre-dispute arbitration agreement

for a consumer financial product or service covered by § 1040.3 entered into after the date set

forth in § 1040.5(a), a provider shall comply with the requirements set forth below.

(1) Records to be submitted. A provider shall submit a copy of the following records to

the Bureau, in the form and manner specified by the Bureau:

(i) In connection with any claim filed in arbitration by or against the provider concerning

any of the consumer financial products or services covered by § 1040.3:

(A) The initial claim and any counterclaim;

(B) The answer to any initial claim and/or counterclaim, if any;

(C) The pre-dispute arbitration agreement filed with the arbitrator or arbitration

administrator;

(D) The judgment or award, if any, issued by the arbitrator or arbitration administrator;

and

(E) If an arbitrator or arbitration administrator refuses to administer or dismisses a claim

due to the provider’s failure to pay required filing or administrative fees, any communication the

provider receives from the arbitrator or an arbitration administrator related to such a refusal;

(ii) Any communication the provider receives from an arbitrator or an arbitration

administrator related to a determination that a pre-dispute arbitration agreement for a consumer

financial product or service covered by § 1040.3 does not comply with the administrator’s

fairness principles, rules, or similar requirements, if such a determination occurs; and

(iii) In connection with any case in court by or against the provider concerning any of the

consumer financial products or services covered by § 1040.3:

(A) Any submission to a court that relies on a pre-dispute arbitration agreement in

support of the provider’s attempt to seek dismissal, deferral, or stay of any aspect of a case; and

(B) The pre-dispute arbitration agreement relied upon in the motion or filing.

(2) Deadline for submission. A provider shall submit any record required pursuant to

paragraph (b)(1) of this section within 60 days of filing by the provider of any such record with

the arbitrator, arbitration administrator, or court, and within 60 days of receipt by the provider of

any such record filed or sent by someone other than the provider, such as the arbitration

administrator, the court, or the consumer.

(3) Redaction. Prior to submission of any records pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this

section, a provider shall redact the following information:

(i) Names of individuals, except for the name of the provider or the arbitrator where

either is an individual;

(ii) Addresses of individuals, excluding city, State, and zip code;

(iii) Email addresses of individuals;

(iv) Telephone numbers of individuals;

(v) Photographs of individuals;

(vi) Account numbers;

(vii) Social Security and tax identification numbers;

(viii) Driver’s license and other government identification numbers; and

(ix) Passport numbers.

(4) Internet posting of arbitral and court records. The Bureau shall establish and

maintain on its publicly available internet site a central repository of the records that providers

submit to it pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and such records shall be easily

accessible and retrievable by the public on its internet site.

In National Labor Relations Board v. Alternative Entertainment, Inc., No. 16-1385, 2017 WL 2297620 (6th Cir. May 26, 2017), the Sixth Circuit joined the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in upholding the NLRB’s decision that barring an employee from pursuing class action or collective claims violates the NLRA. Already lined up on the other side of a growing Circuit split are the Second, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits.

In Alternative Entertainment, Inc., the NLRB claimed that language in both the employment contract and the employee handbook used by Alternative Entertainment, Inc. (“AEI”) “violated the NLRA by barring employees from pursuing class-action litigation or collective arbitration of work-related claims.” Alternative Entertainment, Inc., 2017 WL 2297620 at *1.

Joining the Seventh Circuit’s critique of the Fifth Circuit’s logic in D. R. Horton, the Sixth expressly takes on the Fifth stating “the Fifth Circuit started with the wrong question.” When the Sixth asks the question it believes is the right one–if the NLRA is compatible with the FAA–the Court finds them in “harmony” and holds the employer’s ban on concerted action violates the NLRA. As a result, the court found the ban is also unenforceable under the FAA’s saving clause. According to the Sixth, the NLRA bans contracts that interfere with “employees’ right to engage in concerted activity, not because they mandate arbitration.” Any contract provision that interfered in this way would be illegal, which is in full accord with the FAA’s rejection of any contract that “undermine[s] employees’ right to engage in concerted legal activity.”

The Sixth’s second disagreement with the Fifth Circuit is expressed by the Sixth’s use of Chevron deference (arguing in the alternative, after stating there is no statutory ambiguity). The Sixth accepts the NLRB’s permissible construction of the NLRA’s right to concerted activity as a substantive, not procedural right.

In a partial dissent, and referring to the “manifestation of hostility toward arbitration,” Justice Sutton references the history of judicial protection and support of arbitration agreements provided over time. Specifically, the dissent objects to the majority’s overreaching use of Chevron, and states the majority opinion ignores Concepcion’s rejection of similar arguments harmonizing the NLRA with the FAA. (The majority opinion, however, distinguishes the kind of arbitration provision used by AEI and the kind of arbitration provision used by the employer in Concepcion.)

One question here is why would the Sixth Circuit bother drafting and filing this opinion when SCOTUS has already accepted review of this issue? It is possible the Sixth decided to issue this opinion in an effort to intentionally level the sides of this split by adding its voice to the Seventh and Ninth Circuits. It is also possible that since arguments had been heard in November 2016, opinions had already been formed by the time SCOTUS granted cert. on the question in January 2017. Either way, SCOTUS is expected to opine later this year on cases consolidated as National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., which will resolve the growing divide among the circuits. In granting cert., SCOTUS acknowledged the extent of the Circuit split as it existed in January—and footnoted this Sixth circuit case along with four other potential cases from the Third, Fourth, Eleventh and the D.C. Circuits. SCOTUS saw this one coming their way. I look forward to reading the resolution of this split.

ArbitrationNation thanks Jaclyn Schroeder, a law student at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, for researching and drafting this post.