Two Federal Appeals Courts Address Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements

Credit Cards Arbitration U.S. Supreme Court

This week, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Eleventh Circuits issued rulings regarding the enforceability of arbitration clauses in customer agreements. On January 31, the Eleventh Circuit, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, reversed its earlier unpublished decision that affirmed a district court ruling allowing a consumer class action to proceed against a bank because the class action waiver in the arbitration agreement at issue was substantively unconscionable. The underlying case involves allegations that the bank improperly ordered customer transactions in order to maximize overdraft fees. The bank sought to enforce the arbitration clause in its customer agreement. Given the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), which held that the Federal Arbitration Act establishes a broad policy requiring arbitration of such disputes, and preempts state law that may allow class actions despite customer arbitration agreements, the Eleventh Circuit vacated its earlier decision and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings and reconsideration of the bank's original motion to compel arbitration.

On February 1, the Second Circuit decided not to enforce an arbitration agreement, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Concepcion. In this case, merchants sued a credit card provider arguing that the card provider's interchange fee system violated federal antitrust laws. The card company moved to compel arbitration and enforce a class action waiver provision in the merchant agreement. The Second Circuit vacated a district court decision to enforce the arbitration agreement. That decision in turn was vacated by the Supreme Court and remanded. The Second Circuit, though, did not find that Concepcion altered its original analysis, and the Second Circuit again held that the class action waiver agreement was unenforceable in this case because the practical effect would be to preclude the merchants' ability to pursue statutory rights, an issue not addressed by Concepcion. Consistent with prior Supreme Court caselaw untouched by Concepcion, the merchants proved as a matter of law that the costs of individual arbitration with the lender would be so costly as to deprive them of statutory protections granted by the antitrust laws.