The Supreme Court’s decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant eliminated the last significant obstacle to judicial enforcement of arbitration contracts, holding that agreements requiring bilateral arbitration—and precluding class proceedings—are just as binding and enforceable when the plaintiff’s claim arises under federal law as they are when the claim arises under state law.
The Court explained that this issue was “all but resolved” by its earlier decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), which held that the Federal Arbitration Act prohibits courts from refusing to enforce arbitration agreements on the grounds that they do not provide for class actions. Mayer Brown represented AT&T Mobility in Concepcion and filed an amicus brief for the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable in American Express.
Please join Andrew Pincus and Archis Parasharami, who wrote the American Express amicus brief and represented AT&T Mobility in Concepcion, as they discuss:
- What the Supreme Court’s American Express decision means for businesses facing legal challenges to enforcement of an arbitration agreement.
- How the plaintiffs’ bar is likely to shift its legal attacks on arbitration agreements in response to the American Express ruling.
- The decision’s likely effect on efforts to convince Congress and federal regulatory agencies to restrict the enforceability of arbitration contracts.
Read preliminary observations regarding the Court’s decision that Andy and Archis posted on our Class Defense Blog.