Just over two years ago, the Supreme Court issued its decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted a state rule that class action waivers are unconscionable. Since that time, some courts have sought to limit that decision, either by finding that Concepcion is limited to state law claims or by concluding that Concepcion does not apply if plaintiffs can demonstrate that the high cost of individual arbitration and the limited nature of any award
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
We have written several times in this blog about what we
perceived as the inconsisteny between the Massachusetts decisions
in the Feeney v. Dell case and the SCOTUS decision in
Concepcion.
Most recently, we suggested that the SJC's most recent
decision in Feeney was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's
ruling issued just days later in Amex. Today (8/1/13) the SJC
agreed, and reversed the lower court's denial of Dell's
motion to confirm the arbitration award in the case. Thus
finally (we hope) ends a lengthy saga that demonstrated a direct
conflict between these two high courts and the ultimate recognition
by the SJC that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the
Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of class action
waivers in arbitration agreements even if such a waiver
"effectively denies the plaintiffs a remedy."
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the result, the SJC was
correct to accept the SCOTUS ruling for what it now obviously
is. Hats off to
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.
