fbpx
News
May 15, 2014

Arbitration Three Years After Concepcion

The op-ed originally published in The American Lawyer.

by Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown

Three years after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a key challenge to mandatory arbitration agreements in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the legal rules favoring enforcement of arbitration provisions are fairly settled. Now, with their options dwindling in the courts, arbitration’s opponents are shifting their efforts to the policy arena.

But these rulings do not mean that “anything goes.” Most significantly, if arbitration agreements specify procedures that are fundamentally unfair, and therefore violate state contract law principles of unconscionability, courts can and do refuse to enforce them.

But these rulings do not mean that “anything goes.” Most significantly, if arbitration agreements specify procedures that are fundamentally unfair, and therefore violate state contract law principles of unconscionability, courts can and do refuse to enforce them.

Read the full op-ed here.  

Letters, Comments, Petitions Coalition Letter on H.R. 963, the "FAIR Act" Arbitration Press Releases New Study: Consumers and Employees Win More Money, More Often, and More Quickly in Arbitration Than in Court Arbitration Arbitration Blog What is Arbitration? Arbitration Podcasts EPISODE 22: Summit XXI: New Day, New Tactics: The Plaintiffs’ Bar at Work Arbitration, Class Action Litigation, COVID-19 Liability, Third Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) Blog Claimant Win Rates in Consumer and Employment Arbitration: November 2021 Update Arbitration

Cookie Notice

By clicking “I Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.

Cookie Notice

By clicking “I Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. Review Settings