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 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).
California is famously inhospitable to arbitration. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down California laws disfavoring arbitration on no fewer than six occasions between 1987 and 2022.
In Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision refusing to enforce the Ticketmaster arbitration provision in a purported consumer antitrust class action brought against Ticketmaster and Live Nation. In reaching its decision, the panel concluded that the arbitration agreement in question was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Going further, the panel went out of its way to hold, “as an alternative and independent ground,” that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not apply to the special multi-party arbitrations contemplated for mass arbitrations by the arbitration agreement in question.
On October 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s vacatur of a maritime attachment order, providing a detailed analysis of the requirements for personal and in rem jurisdiction over attached property under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s decision denying a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, underscoring the importance of clear and conspicuous notice in online arbitration agreements. Although the decision involves an arbitration provision in an online application for employment, it echoes lessons imparted by courts in cases involving consumer arbitration agreements. Read more here.