Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed an amicus brief to reverse a 9th Circuit ruling that would eviscerate arbitration agreements in California. The case implicates the question of whether consumer arbitration agreements in California are enforceable if they waive a plaintiff’s right to seek a “public injunction” against the defendant company. California’s consumer protection laws generally allow a consumer to seek a public injunction that compels the defendant company to take public action to remedy the alleged consumer protection violation. In this case, for example, the plaintiffs sought a public injunction compelling AT&T to change its disclosures regarding certain roaming fees. Successful public injunction claims can force companies to undertake major and disruptive changes to their business, products or services. A federal district court and the 9th Circuit invalidated AT&T’s arbitration agreement because it contained a public injunction waiver. AT&T petitioned the full 9th Circuit to review the case en banc. In support of review, the NAM filed an amicus brief that argues the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California law and that requiring arbitration of public injunction claims frustrates and undermines the purpose and benefits of individualized arbitration. On January 14, 2020, the court denied rehearing.