United States: Recent Developments For Litigation Risk Mitigation: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Prescription

Last Updated: February 12 2014
Article by Daniel P. Shapiro

Over the past three years, since mid-2010, the Supreme Court has handed down a series of related decisions that, taken together, constitute an instruction manual for American business on how to reduce litigation risk. As the world has "flattened" and trade has increasingly globalized and become borderless, it has been impossible to ignore that only in the U.S. economy is litigation such a prominent line item for business. This is particularly true with regard to class action litigation. No other country has the sort of class—or collective—action rules that the United States does. Perhaps in response to these facts, the Supreme Court has made it clear that through a combination of arbitration (as opposed to litigation) and class action waiver clauses properly used, businesses can contract out from under a great deal of litigation risk for the future and fundamentally change their litigation environment.

The new Supreme Court decisions offer instruction on how, exactly, to use arbitration clauses and class action waivers to mitigate litigation risk.

A Brief Moment for Definitions

For some readers this may be "old hat," and for some less so, but it seems worth a moment to cover a couple of basic terms:

"Arbitration" does not take place in court, or in any government sponsored system. Arbitrations take place pursuant to agreements between parties stating that their disputes will be arbitrated rather than litigated. Arbitrators are privately engaged and paid by the parties to the dispute. Arbitrations, unlike court proceedings in litigation, are generally private and confidential. Depending upon the arbitration agreement, arbitrations can be less involved, faster, and less expensive than litigation, although not always. Arbitrations also have fewer procedural protections for the parties. For example, the rules of evidence in arbitrations tend to be more relaxed, and, with only narrow exceptions, arbitrations are final and binding. There are virtually no rights of appeal.

"Class actions" can take place in state or federal court, or in arbitration. A class action begins when the court (or arbitrator) approves the plaintiff's request that the claims of all people or businesses that have allegedly suffered the same wrong at the hands of the same defendant be determined in a single proceeding with the named plaintiff acting as the representative for the entire class. Generally, the decision approving or rejecting the plaintiff's request for class treatment (called "class certification") is made early in a case, before liability or damages issues have been considered. Once a class is certified, all of the claims of the plaintiff class members are aggregated and, generally, the economic risk of the litigation to the defendant increases exponentially, sometimes to ruinous levels. Very often, cases settle after the class certification decision, if they have not settled before.

Recent Supreme Court Decisions

No single Supreme Court opinion provides a prescription for how to use arbitration and class action waiver clauses in contracts. The Court's approach has been incremental, but the end result is a consistent, progressive layering of pronouncements by the Court about how to limit litigation exposure. Books and long articles are written on Supreme Court decisions, but here are a few thumbnail sketches that may be useful for immediate application.

To begin, in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds International, Corp.,1 decided in April 2010, the Court considered a standard form arbitration clause used by parties to a commercial ocean shipping contract. The arbitration clause provided that any dispute between the parties would be subject to arbitration. The question presented was whether a class action should be included within the ambit of that clause.

The Court started its analysis with what would become its consistent starting point in these related cases: an arbitration provision, like any other provision of a contract, is the expression of an agreement between the contracting parties and their intent should ordinarily be given effect. The question, therefore, became whether the parties intended that a class claim was intended to be subject to arbitration when they agreed upon their arbitration clause. The Court decided that a class action would "change the nature of arbitration to such a degree that it cannot be presumed the parties consented to it by simply agreeing to submit their disputes to an arbitrator."2 That is, the Court decided that silence with regard to the inclusion of class actions under an arbitration provision does not equal assent. The parties must be found, as a matter of fact and intent, to have agreed that class actions are to be included in the scope of an arbitration clause in order for that to be the case. It seems prudent, then, to say that an arbitration clause should expressly state that class actions are included, or not, depending on the intent of the parties.

One year later, in April 2011, the Court added its next layer of thought and direction. In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,3 the Court considered a clause in a consumer contract that both required that all disputes be arbitrated, and prevented the consumer from bringing or participating in a class action. Anticipating that consumers would assert, and courts would find, that this combination of arbitration and class action waiver provisions was unconscionable and should not be enforced, AT&T also included provisions in this contract that heavily favored consumers. For example, AT&T was obligated to pay all of the consumer's arbitration costs; the arbitrator was empowered to award punitive damages against AT&T; and, if the consumer obtained an award greater than AT&T's last written settlement offer then AT&T was obligated to pay the consumer $7,500, plus two times the consumer's attorney's fees.

Notwithstanding these contract provisions intended to even the playing field and provide the consumer with remediation rights even without access to courts or class actions, the Ninth Circuit found this contract to be unconscionable and struck it down. That court opined that AT&T had used its contracts to remove the deterrent effect of class actions and effectively insulate itself from claims of consumer fraud.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It reversed the Ninth Circuit, finding that under the Federal Arbitration Act there is a presumption in favor of finding that arbitration provisions between parties are valid, and that AT&T had built in enough protections so that the consumer was not without remedies. The Court in Concepcion seems to have told the business community that given the relevant economics of a particular circumstance, if the party with unequal bargaining power is left with meaningful remedies, arbitration and express class action waiver provisions will be enforced, even in the face of unconscionability challenges.

Shortly after the decision in Concepcion, the Court in June 2011 handed down its opinion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.4 This opinion is probably fairly characterized as being less about blazing new trails and more about the Court's insistence on adhering to the existing rules governing class certification. Those rules require a showing of "commonality" before a class can be certified. By tightening up the requirements for class certification and sending a message to the lower courts and plaintiffs' lawyers that the prerequisites for class certification will be taken seriously, the Court breathed new vitality into an important defense to class actions.

To understand the importance of the reinforcing message of Wal-Mart, recall that a class action is a device created by the courts to deal with many plaintiffs at the same time, in the same lawsuit. For that to work and be fair to all participants, all of the plaintiff class members must have at least allegedly suffered the same wrong at the hands of the same defendant. That is, the litigation has to solve the same complaint on common grounds for all of the class members. The rules on class certification refer to this as the requirement of "commonality." In Wal-Mart, the plaintiff class alleged that its members had suffered discrimination in the workplace. But the court found there had been an insufficient showing that the defendant, as an enterprise, had acted uniformly, consistently, and with a common purpose. That is, the plaintiff class members may or may not have suffered discrimination on an individual basis, but there had not been enough of a showing by the plaintiff that the cause of that discrimination was "common" from case to case. There may have been a bad actor in a Des Moines store, and another in Albany, but nothing tying their actions together had been established. These were each, in essence, individual cases subject to individual inquiries, defenses, and proof. Class treatment, therefore, would be unfair to the defendant and would not be appropriate. The Court in Wal-Mart made clear that it was insisting that class certification decisions have to be grounded in the purpose and justification for class treatment, and that a rigorous approach to the "commonality" rule will be required, thereby making class actions more difficult to bring.

In January 2012, the Court put another brick in the wall it was building with its opinion in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood.5 In this case, the plaintiff signed a credit agreement that included an arbitration clause requiring arbitration of all disputes. The plaintiff sued in court, rather than arbitrating, citing the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA). The plaintiff asserted that Congress had included in CROA a provision stating that a plaintiff with a CROA claim has the right to sue and that any waiver of that right is not enforceable. The plaintiff argued that his "right to sue" meant a right to bring a lawsuit in court and that he could not be deprived of that right and be forced to arbitrate. The Court disagreed. It found that in the absence of a clear statement by Congress that a court action, as opposed to an arbitration, was guaranteed in any particular statute, the Federal Arbitration Act required that the arbitration clause agreed to by the plaintiff be honored. The Court reinforced the idea that federal policy requires arbitration clauses be honored even in the face of statutory language that might invalidate that aspect of a contract between parties, unless that statutory language from Congress is without ambiguity.

In mid-2013 the Court, issued three more opinions, all continuing in the direction of further limiting class litigation.

In March 2013, the Court ruled in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.6 Here, the Court reviewed a decision certifying a class of more than 2 million people who claimed to have suffered antitrust injury at the hands of the defendant. The plaintiff, however, was unable to show that it would ever be possible to measure damages across the entire class. The Court reversed the two lower courts, which had found that class certification was nonetheless appropriate.

This opinion is important because class certification is almost always determined as an early stage, procedural matter. Courts often find not only that extensive factual investigation is not required for class certification, but that such factual investigation will not be undertaken at this early stage of the case if it will draw the court into any significant examination of facts that also go to the merits (liability and damages) of the case. The Supreme Court in Comcast, however, implicitly recognized that quite often, in fact almost always, the most important decision in a class action will be the question of class certification. The Court reversed the lower courts because it found there had not been sufficient factual development to demonstrate that the plaintiffs would ever be able to figure out damages for the class, even if they were able to win on liability. The Court insisted here that before a class is certified, the plaintiff must show that class treatment will be appropriate and workable over the life of the case. Before Comcast, a plaintiff's lawyer had a better chance to get a class certified on almost no factual record and then have the cudgel of a certified class to use for purposes of settlement discussions. After Comcast, where factual questions come up as a part of the class certification decision, those questions have to be answered by the plaintiff's lawyer before a class will be allowed to proceed. This imposes a significant burden on plaintiffs' lawyers and lower courts and, in certain cases, makes the class certification threshold much more difficult to clear.

In June of 2013 the Court issued two more opinions, both of significance.

In Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter,7 a pediatrician brought a class action against the defendant for failing to make full and prompt payments to doctors. The doctor's contract with the plan provided, however, that all disputes between the parties would be subject to arbitration. The arbitration clause was silent, though, on whether it included class actions, or whether a class claim would be allowed to proceed in court. Because the arbitration clause was silent on whether class actions were included within its reach, it was left to the arbitrator to decide, as a factual inquiry, what the parties had intended.

This is reminiscent of the decision in Stolt-Nielsen discussed above. Here, though, the Court reminds the reader that courts have extremely limited authority to disturb the findings and decisions of an arbitrator. The arbitrator in this case determined that the language used by the parties in their arbitration clause was intended by the parties to include class actions. Another arbitrator may have decided differently. The Court's opinion is another warning to contracting parties to state explicitly in their agreed upon arbitration clauses what the scope of those clauses are intended to be. Do you want class actions to be included, or not? (If it is left unclear, the arbitrator will decide for you.)

Answering the question of whether you want an arbitration clause to include class claims (assuming there is no class waiver provision) is complex and involves considerations of what benefits arbitration may provide, and what it may not. Appellate rights, particularly in class litigation, are an important and complicated consideration. However complex, though, it is clearly better to anticipate and decide those issues knowingly in advance.

Finally, on June 20, 2013, the Court issued its opinion in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant.8 The plaintiff was a merchant claiming that American Express used monopoly power to force the imposition of excessive credit card fees. The suit was a class action alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws. The defendant relied on its contracts with the class members, which included both arbitration clauses and class action waiver provisions. The merchant argued that without a class action, there would almost certainly not be any litigation because the individual claims of each merchant were too small to warrant individual lawsuits. As a practical matter, without the economic incentives of a class action for plaintiffs' lawyers, this suit would not be brought. This has been a common argument relied on by some courts to find class action waiver provisions to be unconscionable and unenforceable (see the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in Comcast, above). The Supreme Court this time expressly rejected this argument and may have ended this aspect of the unconscionability debate. The Court decided that some claims may, as a practical matter, be too small to justify litigation, but that fact in itself is not enough to justify setting aside an agreement between the parties that they would not bring or participate in class litigation.

Risk Management Opportunities

The Court's recent rulings have made profound changes in the law regarding the use and enforceability of arbitration and class action waiver clauses. Taking a step back and looking at these contract provisions in light of recent Supreme Court opinions, it is clear that there are real and significant benefits to be had.

This piece is adapted from Daniel P. Shapiro's article published in the November 2013, issue of AHLA Connections. © 2013 American Health Lawyers Association.


1 559 U.S. 662 (2010).

2 Id. at 685.

3 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011).

4 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011).

5 132 S. Ct. 665 (2012).

6 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013).

7 133 S. Ct. 2064 (2013).

8 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions