Mey v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-179-JPB-JPM (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 12, 2021) [click for opinion]
In 2012, Plaintiff Diana Mey, an ordinary wireless consumer, entered into a cell phone service contract with AT&T Mobility which included an agreement to arbitrate “all disputes and claims” with AT&T Mobility and its “affiliates.” In 2015, the parent company of AT&T Mobility—AT&T Inc.—acquired DIRECTV. DIRECTV does not provide cell phone service.
Some years later, Mey sued DIRECTV for making unwanted automated telemarketing calls. DIRECTV moved to compel arbitration, asserting that the dispute was covered by the arbitration agreement governing Mey’s cell phone plan with AT&T Mobility. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the agreement and that any other construction of the agreement would be unconscionably overbroad. DIRECTV appealed. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order, finding that the dispute was within the scope of the agreement, but remanded the issue for further consideration of Mey’s unconscionability challenge……
Read the complete story here.
In this round of Arbitration Tips-N-Tools, Professor Amy Schmitz asks some of the leading arbitration practitioners about hiring a third party to assist with virtual hearings, especially in a digital...By Marsha Ternus, Deborah Hylton, Michael Pitton, Amy Schmitz
This article was first published on the Securities Arbitrate Alert, here. In about a month, the Supreme Court has gone from zero arbitration-centric cases set for review to four (five...By George Friedman
This article first appeared on Securities Arbitration Alert, here. Years ago I penned a blog post on Thanksgiving and arbitration. It still rings true. So, without further ado, here’s my...By George Friedman