Canada: Third Time’s The Charm – The United States Supreme Court To Consider The Availability Of Class Arbitration For The Third Time In American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant


The United States Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal in a case that will clarify whether federal arbitration law permits the invalidation of arbitration agreements on the basis that they do not permit class arbitration.  This decision will have implications on the development of class arbitration, an emerging area of both American and Canadian class actions law.

Decisions Below

The case arose out of a dispute over the costs of acceptance of credit cards and charge cards issued by American Express ("Amex").  The merchant plaintiffs alleged Amex compelled them to accept its high cost revolving credit products by virtue of the Honor All Cards rule contained in its Card Acceptance Agreement with the merchants.  The Honor All Cards rule mandated the acceptance of all Amex products, rather than the ability to select particular credit card products which the merchant would accept or reject.

The arbitration clause in the Card Acceptance Agreement contained the following language: "If arbitration is chosen by any party with respect of a claim, neither you nor we will have the right to litigate that claim in court or have a jury trial on that claim ... Further, you will not have the right to participate in a representative capacity or as a member of any class of claimants pertaining to any claim subject to arbitration."

Amex moved to compel arbitration.  The district court granted Amex's motion, holding that the enforceability of class arbitration waivers was an issue for the arbitrator to resolve.

The United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit reversed, holding (on the basis of an affidavit of an economist adduced by the Plaintiffs) that individual arbitrations were not economically feasible to pursue in this case.  In light of the practical impossibility of pursuing individual arbitrations, and the clause banning class arbitrations, the Circuit Court held that the arbitration provision of the Card Acceptance Agreement was invalid, because it granted Amex "de facto immunity from antitrust liability" by removing the plaintiffs' only feasible means of recovery.

Amex appealed.  The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Circuit Court, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Scott-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758.  In Scott-Nielsen, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "a party may not be compelled under the Federal Arbitration Act to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that he party agreed to do so." (emphasis in original).  In other words, where the arbitration agreement is silent on the question of class arbitration, the arbitrator is not at liberty to permit it.

On remand to the Circuit Court, the original Amex decision was upheld.  The Circuit Court determined that Scott-Nielsen did not mandate the reversal of its original decision.  It found that Scott-Nielsen did not engage the issues of the case.  At issue in Amex was whether the mandatory class action waiver was enforceable even if the plaintiffs were able to demonstrate that eh practical effect of enforcement of the waiver would be to preclude their bringing anti-trust claims against Amex.  Amex appealed, once again.

Shortly after the Amex II decision, the Supreme Court issued its decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Conception, 131 S. Ct. 1740.  The question in Concepcion was "whether the FAA prohibits States form conditioning the enforceability of certain arbitration agreements on the availability of classwide arbitration procedures.  Under California common law, class action waivers contained in arbitration clauses were regularly found unconscionable, especially in consumer contracts.  The Supreme Court held that the FAA pre-empted California common law on this point and that the scheme created by California common law was inconsistent with the FAA.

The Supreme Court then remanded the Amex case to the Circuit Court for the second time.  In Amex III, The Circuit Court again upheld its previous decision.  It held:

"Concepcion and Scott-Nielsen, taken together, stand squarely for the principle that parties cannot be forced to arbitrate disputes in a class-action arbitration unless the parties agree to class action arbitration."

In contrast, the Circuit Court in Amex II was not ordering the parties to participate in class arbitration.  It was merely stating that a class action waiver is unenforceable where class arbitration is not an option available to the parties.  Scott-Nielsen and Conception do not stand for the proposition that all class action waivers are per se enforceable, and thus do not contradict Amex II.

The Court then offered a few policy observations.  As the Supreme Court has observed in Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974), "[t]he policy at the very core of the class action mechanism is to overcome the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights."  The Supreme Court has also recognized arbitration as an effective vehicle for vindicating statutory rights, but only "so long as the prospective litigant may effectively vindicate its statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum."  Furthermore, the Supreme Court has acknowledged in Green Tree Financial Corp. – Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) that "the existence of large arbitration costs could preclude a litigant ... from effectively vindicating her federal statutory rights in the arbitral forum."  The Circuit Court found this dictum from Randolph controlling.  Thus, it held that causes that in effect make it impossible for the plaintiffs to assert their rights, by prohibiting class arbitration despite individual arbitration being economically unfeasible, must be held invalid.

Potential Significance

The case will be the latest clarification in the emerging area of class arbitrations in the United States.  The idea of class arbitrations holds the promise of combining the benefits of class actions (arbitration of individually non-viable claims, economy of adjudicative resources etc.) with the benefits of arbitration (confidentiality, procedural flexibility, speed of adjudication).  The field of class actions involves the inherent conflict between the freedom of parties to contract to arbitrate their claims and the need to ensure consumers are not disenfranchised from their right to commence a class action, granted by legislation.  There is now substantial divergence between the U.S. Supreme Court's and Canadian Supreme Court's views on this issue.  In Seidel v. TELUS Communications Inc., 2011 SCC 15, the Supreme Court of Canada permitted a consumer class action to proceed in court, in the face of an arbitration clause in a cellular phone service contract, on the basis of its interpretation of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act of British Columbia. The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that "[i]t is clearly open to a legislature to utilize private consumers as effective enforcement partners operating independently of the formal enforcement bureaucracy and to conclude that the most effective form is not a 'private and confidential' alternative dispute resolution behind closed doors, but very public and well-publicized proceedings in a court of law."  Conversely, in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 US ____ 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to invalidate an arbitration clause in the face of a consumer protection statute that mandated the disclosure of a "right to sue."  The U.S. Supreme Court took a cautious, technical interpretation to the consumer protection statute, consistent with the strongly expressed federal legislative policy favouring arbitration.

For more on this divergence, see our posts here and here. See also: Ron Podolny, "U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Enforceability of Arbitration Clauses" 1 Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Review 3 (August 2012).

Perhaps because of the U.S. Supreme Court's deference to the language of the arbitration agreement, class arbitration is far more important for U.S. class plaintiffs than for Canadian ones.  This may explain the relative paucity of judicial dicta on class arbitrations in Canada. In contrast with several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have dealt with the subject, the Supreme Court of Canada has never approached it.  The Ontario Superior Court, in Kanitz v. Rogers Cable Inc. (2002), 58 O.R. (3d) 299 (Sup. Ct. J.) explicitly recognized the possibility of a class action arbitration in Ontario.  In the words of Nordheimer J.:

"Without deciding the point, it would appear that section 20(1)[of the Arbitration Act, 1991] would permit an arbitrator, at the very least, to consolidate a number of arbitrations which raise the same issue.  Therefore, it appears at least arguable that if each of the five named representative plaintiffs here chose to seek arbitrations of their claims, an arbitrator might well decide that those arbitrations could be dealt with together thereby saving time and expense for all parties.  Such possibilities serve to mitigate against the central assertion of the plaintiffs that the arbitration clause operates so as to erect an economic wall barring customers of the defendant from effectively seeking relief."

The possibility of class action arbitration has similarly been recognized in Ruddell v. B.C. Rail Ltd., 2007 BCCA 269, where stated:

"Further, in my view, the chambers judge did not give effect to the language of [the applicable pension legislation] which provides that an arbitration decision is 'final and binding on the parties and any person affected by the decision.'  Given that provision, a successful arbitration by even one member would bind these similarly placed.  Harkening to the history of class actions recounted in Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc.., it is within an arbitrator's mandate, in my view, to recognize an arbitration advanced by an individual on a point of principle, as is here the case, and fashion a response applicable to others who are in the same position.  Alternatively, the solution proposed in Kanitz v. Rogers Cable is available." [citations omitted, emphasis added.]

Conversely, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in Smith v. National Money Mart Company (2005), 258 D.L.R. (4th) 453, may have closed the door on class arbitration in Ontario by stating that "under the [Ontario] Class Proceedings Act, only a justice of the Superior Court has jurisdiction over class proceedings and arbitrators cannot assume jurisdiction."  However, the Circuit Court in Smith did not rule on the availability of class action arbitration, but rather on jurisdiction to interpret arbitration clauses, and thus the development of class action arbitrations remains a possibility in Ontario and Canada generally.  Should class arbitration be utilized in Canada in the future, Canadian courts will have to grapple with the questions raised by cases such as Italian Colours Restaurant.

Case Information

American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant

Decision below: 667 F.3d 204.

Cert. Granted: 11/9/2012.

To view original article, please click here.

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

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

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.