Second Circuit Panel Strikes Arbitration Agreement With Class Action Waiver

01 February 2012 Consumer Class Defense Counsel Blog

In In Re: American Express Merchants’ Litigation (No. 06-1871-cv), a two judge panel of the Second Circuit breathes new life into arguments to strike arbitration clauses. The court held that, because of the allegedly prohibitive costs for pursuing antitrust claims on an individual basis, forcing the plaintiffs to pursue their claims in arbitration would prohibit them from effectively vindicating their federal claims. The court therefore held that the arbitration agreement at issue was unenforceable. 

For those of you who thought that the U.S. Supreme Court (in Stolt-Nielsen, Concepcion, and CompuCredit) finally put to rest any arguments about the enforceability of arbitration clauses and class action waivers, a two judge panel of the Second Circuit begs to differ. In In Re: American Express Merchants’ Litigation (No. 06-1871-cv), a two judge panel (the original third judge, now Justice Sotomayor, having obtained new employment since the case was originally argued) concluded that an arbitration agreement with a class action waiver is unenforceable based on expert testimony that it would be cost prohibitive for the plaintiffs to pursue their antitrust claims on an individual basis. This would mean, the court reasoned, that arbitration would not permit the plaintiffs to effectively vindicate their federal statutory rights. The court therefore held that the arbitration agreement is not enforceable.

Notably, the court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 92 (2000), which held that when “a party seeks to invalidate an arbitration agreement on the ground that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive, that party bears the burden of showing the likelihood of incurring such costs.” The Second Circuit concluded that the expert testimony about the costs of pursuing an antitrust claim satisfied this requirement. (Slip op. at 21-24.) However, in Green Tree, the discussion focused on comparing the “arbitration costs” to the costs of pursuing a claim in court. See, e.g., Green Tree, 531U.S. at 522. Here, the expert testimony focused solely on the costs of pursuing an antitrust claim as an individual—regardless of whether that claim was pursued in arbitration or in court.       

It remains to be seen whether other courts will adopt this line of reasoning. Obviously, it is hard to imagine that plaintiffs with many other federal claims could not raise the same type of argument about the costs of proceeding on an individual basis. For now, however, expect to see this case heavily cited by class action attorneys looking to avoid arbitration.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services