Supreme Court Enforces Mandatory Arbitration Provision in California

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and many consumer advocates may not be big fans of arbitration provisions in consumer contracts, but yesterday the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in favor of DirecTV Inc., backing the satellite television provider’s efforts to enforce arbitration agreements signed by its customers in California.

In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court overturned a state appeals court decision in California that had previously found consumers were not bound by a provision in DirecTV’s customer agreement preventing disputes from being resolved on a class-wide basis.

The case, Directv, Inc. v. Imburgia, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7999, has been ongoing for seven years. In 2008, the two respondents brought this lawsuit against DirecTV in a California state court. They sought damages for early termination fees that they believe violated California law.

Imburgia and Grenier had entered into a service agreement with DirecTV that included a binding arbitration provision with a class- arbitration waiver. It specified that the entire arbitration provision was unenforceable if the “law of your state” made class-arbitration waivers unenforceable. The agreement also declared that the arbitration clause was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. After various proceedings, DirecTV, pointing to the arbitration provision, asked the court to send the matter to arbitration. The state trial court denied that request, and DirecTV appealed.

The California Court of Appeal subsequently affirmed the trial court’s denial of DirecTV’s motion to enforce the arbitration provision.

The California Supreme Court denied discretionary review. DirecTV then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, noting that the Ninth Circuit had reached the opposite conclusion on precisely the same interpretive question decided by the California Court of Appeal. Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc., 724 F. 3d 1218, 1226-1228 (2013). The United States Supreme Court granted the petition.

At the Supreme Court, the majority opinion held that because the California Court of Appeal’s interpretation is pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act, that court must enforce the arbitration agreement.

Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion on behalf of the majority. He said, “Federal arbitration law trumped state law that stated arbitration could not be required.” The dissenters were Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor.

insideARM Perspective

The issue of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts is highly contentious.  The CFPB has made it very clear that they have arbitration provisions in the rifle scope during upcoming rulemaking activity.

On October 8, 2015 insidARM wrote about the Arbitration Field Hearing held by the CFPB to discuss arbitration.

On October 9, 2015, insideARM republished an excellent article by Andy Pincus, a partner at the Mayer, Brown & Platt law firm in Washington, D.C.  That article outlined the CFPB position and their proposal to ban the use of arbitration to resolve consumer disputes.

It will be interesting to see if and how the CFPB and Supreme Court positions on arbitration provisions can be synchronized.

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

Posted in California, CFPB, Credit Grantors, Featured Post, Telecom Collections .

×
Subscribe to our email newsletters

Continuing the Discussion

We welcome and encourage readers to comment and engage in substantive exchanges over topics on insideARM.com. Users must always follow our Terms of Use. Also know that your comment will be deleted if you: use profanity, engage in any kind of hate speech, post an incoherent or irrelevant thought, make a point of targeting anyone, or do anything else we find unsavory. Your comment will be posted under your current Display Name, shown below. If you'd like to change your Display Name, you must update it on the My Profile page.

Leave a Reply