As we previously reported, the American Arbitration Association has been considering changes to its rules for consumer and workplace arbitrations. In February 2025, the AAA requested public comments on proposed changes to its rules. We submitted comprehensive comments to identify ways to improve the proposed rules to ensure fairness for all while reducing the
Class actions—and increasingly, mass arbitrations—pursuing claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act are proliferating. My colleagues Archis Parasharami and Sophia Mancall-Bitel have recently written an article about these claims, key court decisions interpreting the VPPA, and strategies and defenses for companies facing VPPA claims.
As we previously discussed, the American Arbitration Association requested comments on proposed changes to its Consumer and Employment Arbitration Rules.
We submitted comprehensive comments on the proposed amendments on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Financial Services Association, and the Automotive Alliance for Innovation. The comments identify ways in which the
The American Arbitration Association has announced that it has drafted potential amendments to its Consumer Arbitration Rules and Employment Arbitration Rules, and is seeking comments on those proposed revisions. The AAA has posted the proposed new Consumer and Employment Rules, charts comparing the new Consumer and Employment language to the current language, as well
We have written before about the well-documented rise of abusive mass arbitrations, which seeks to weaponize arbitration clauses to try to extract a settlement from the targeted business, regardless of the merits of the underlying claims. The goal of these mass-arbitration filers is to inflict such high upfront costs on the targeted business—which pays
Businesses have long argued that federal courts cannot grant class certification when members of the proposed class would lack Article III standing to bring their own claims. The Supreme Court is now poised to provide an answer. Last Friday, the Court granted review in Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis to decide “[w]hether a federal court
Abuse of the arbitration system by plaintiffs’ lawyers through the filing of mass arbitrations is by now well-documented, including in a paper we authored for the Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform. Companies have responded by revising arbitration agreements to address this abuse, and arbitral forums have adopted new default rules to govern mass
The Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is significant news in the world of mass arbitration. In recent years, businesses have faced an increasing risk of being targeted by abusive mass arbitration campaigns that seek to leverage the arbitration fees the business must pay, win or lose, to coerce a
The AAA recently announced a new set of rules of mass arbitrations, as well as new fee schedules for consumer and worker arbitrations. We and some of our colleagues wrote a Legal Update about the changes, how they impact businesses, and whether the updates might help with widespread abuses in mass arbitrations.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. creates substantial uncertainty over whether companies that register to do business in certain states can be subject to personal jurisdiction for claims unrelated to the forum—because those states require consent to general jurisdiction as a condition of registration. Mallory involved a Pennsylvania law