Arbitration

Subscribe to Arbitration via RSS

Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Empower Finance’s motion to compel arbitration in a class action lawsuit concerning its earned wage access (EWA) product, Cash Advance. In Vickery v. Empower Finance, Inc., the court found that Empower’s Cash Advance product was “credit” under the Military Lending Act (MLA) making Empower’s arbitration agreement unenforceable under the MLA, which prohibits arbitration agreements for consumer credit extended to active-duty service members and their dependents.

In a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court reversed a district court’s ruling and compelled arbitration in the case of Massel v. Successfulmatch.com dba Millionaire Match. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff consumer received reasonably conspicuous notice of the Service Agreement (containing the arbitration clause), to which the plaintiff assented by checking the box required for account creation and continued use of the website.

California Senate Bill 940 (SB 940), enacted in late 2024, introduces several key changes to arbitrations involving “consumer contracts,” which is defined as a contract prepared by a seller and signed by a consumer for the sale or lease of goods or services or for the extension of credit purchased or used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Below, we explore the major provisions of SB 940 and their implications.

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.

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 March 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in two class-action lawsuits. The decision potentially has far-reaching implications for the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, particularly those involving unilateral modification provisions.

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 January 27, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a significant opinion holding that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) does not prohibit the enforcement of arbitration agreements in credit card contracts under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).