Put this post in the “I called it” category.
On June 12, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared in Feeney that class arbitration waivers are invalid under Massachusetts law if plaintiffs cannot effectively pursue their claims in individual arbitration. On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court decided American Express, holding that arbitration agreements must be enforced according to their terms under the Federal Arbitration Act, even if it means that low-dollar claims will not be prosecuted. That same day, this blog predicted that Feeney would be overturned based on Amex. On August 1, as anticipated, Massachusetts’ highest court concluded “that following Amex, [its] analysis in Feeney II no longer comports with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the FAA.” Feeney v. Dell, Inc., __ N.E.2d __, 2013 WL 3929051 (Aug. 1, 2013).
The justices of Massachusetts make clear that they disagree with the Amex majority, though: “Although we regard as untenable the Supreme Court’s view that ‘the FAA’s command to enforce arbitration agreements trumps any interest in ensuring the prosecution of low-value claims,’  we are bound to accept that view as a controlling statement of Federal law.”
More predictions about state court decisions in next week’s anniversary post. . . that’s right ArbitrationNation is almost two years old!
*If you like having your own personal arbitration crystal ball, or if you otherwise find this blawg useful or interesting, please consider nominating it for the ABA Journal’s list of the top 100 Blawgs! The deadline is August 9 and ArbitrationNation would be honored to be listed for a second year. http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/blawg100_submit/