The American Arbitration Association (AAA) has announced revisions to its Consumer Arbitration Rules effective May 1, 2025. The revised rules can be found here and the AAA’s announcement of the rules here. Prior to amending the rules, AAA requested public comments on its proposed changes, soliciting ways to improve the rules while ensuring fairness to all participants in the arbitration process. Although not every rule was revised, there are some significant changes.
Mass arbitration continues to be a significant and evolving issue in the legal landscape, particularly for consumer, healthcare, and employment disputes. The American Arbitration Association (AAA) recently released data from 2024 that provides valuable insights into the trends and outcomes of mass arbitrations.
On April 1, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) announced the launch of its new Consumer Mediation Procedures and Fee Schedule. According to the announcement, updates aim to simplify and make dispute resolution more accessible for consumers, particularly those who are self-represented and may be unfamiliar with the mediation process. Prior to the adopting the procedures, the AAA did not have any processes in place for explaining the benefits of mediation or disclosing the fees associated with using a AAA mediator.
On February 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a petition to compel individual arbitration against Starz Entertainment, LLC. The court held that the plaintiff, who objected to JAMS’ decision to consolidate arbitration proceedings, was not aggrieved under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because Starz never failed, neglected, or refused to arbitrate. The consolidation of numerous identical filings by JAMS pursuant to its own rules did not present a gateway question of arbitrability. Furthermore, the FAA did not permit the plaintiff to raise unconscionability as a basis to compel individual arbitration. The decision distinguishes Heckman v. Live Nation Ent., Inc. and provides further guidance to parties seeking to control mass arbitration risk.
On May 2, JAMS announced its new Mass Arbitration Procedures and Guidelines and Mass Arbitration Procedures Fee Schedule (together, the Procedures), with the express goal to “facilitate the fair, expeditious and efficient resolution of Mass Arbitrations” and implicit intent to reduce the administrative burden and onerous fees of mass arbitrations, as well as the delay and potential unfairness to the parties. While effective immediately, the Procedures only apply if the parties have agreed to their application in a pre- or post-dispute written agreement. This limitation significantly decreases the effectiveness of the Procedures as a tool for hedging risks and limiting the high costs of mass arbitration.
In representing fintech companies and other lenders, we increasingly confront claims against debt buyers or entities with bank partner relationships brought under Pennsylvania’s Consumer Discount Company Act (CDCA) and the Loan Interest and Protection Law (LIPL). This article highlights a recent case addressing the CDCA decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.