Parties seeking to compel arbitration often rely on the rule that where an arbitration agreement contains broad language, any ambiguity about whether a claim must be arbitrated should be resolved in favor of arbitration. The Eleventh Circuit, in reversing a decision by the Northern District of Georgia, recently relied on that rule in finding that a cable subscriber agreement containing an arbitration clause “related to” a dispute arising after the termination of the subscriber agreement. Hearn v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 992 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2021). But the Eleventh Circuit remanded to the district court to determine whether the arbitration clause was too broad to be enforced against a consumer of cable services, describing the enforceability issue as “a close question.”
Read the complete story here.
This article first appeared on the Securites Arbitration Alert (SAA) Blog here. FINRA has issued a Regulatory Notice reminding industry parties on the proper use of predispute arbitration agreements (“PDAA”)...By George Friedman
When Arbitrator Intelligence promised to increase transparency, accountability, and diversity in arbitrator selection, it was celebrated as a welcome innovation. Now separated from its academic backing, however, it might accomplish...By Katherine Simpson
In this episode of the Arbitration Conversation Amy interviews Prof. S.I. Strong of the University of Sydney about trust arbitration and new laws in New Zealand. https://youtu.be/QhMxassqMvYBy Stacie Strong, Amy Schmitz