United States: Man Bites Dog: California Supreme Court unanimously rejects unconscionability challenge to consumer arbitration provision

The California Supreme Court has a reputation for hostility to arbitration, especially in the consumers and employment context. Much of the arbitration docket of the United States Supreme Court over the past 30 years has involved reversals of California Supreme Court decisions refusing to enforce arbitration agreements, most recently (and perhaps most notably) in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (in which the authors were counsel). Even when seemingly compelled to enforce an arbitration provision in the face of recent U.S. Supreme Court authority, the California court has often found a way to carve out some exception to arbitration in the particular case or to offer suggestions to plaintiffs seeking to avoid arbitration in a future case. A prime example is the 2014 decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation, which exempted from arbitration all wage-and-hour civil-penalty claims under the Private Attorney General Act.

The decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. (pdf) represents a welcome break from this pattern, upholding an arbitration agreement against an array of unconscionability challenges without finding it necessary to sever even a single clause to render the agreement enforceable. Although every point decided in Sanchez is consistent with recent U.S. Supreme Court authority applying the Federal Arbitration Act, however, the opinion's emphasis on the specific factual setting may seed further efforts to evade arbitration agreements . As so often is the case, the devil is often in the details.

Sanchez arose from the plaintiff's purchase of a used Mercedes from Valencia. Although he signed a standard auto finance agreement containing an arbitration clause, Sanchez later brought a putative class action alleging that Valencia had misrepresented the condition of the vehicle and that the sales contract did not comply with regulatory requirements relating to fees and disclosures. Valencia sought to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied based on the provision's class waiver. Although Concepcion overturned that basis for objection while Valencia's appeal was pending, the California Court of Appeal nonetheless affirmed, finding that several other provisions rendered the agreement so pervasively unconscionable that it could not be enforced.

In an opinion by Justice Liu for six Justices, the California Supreme Court rejected each of the challenges that had been raised below. But the opinion is as notable for what it left open as for what it decided. The court sought supplemental briefing, by parties and amici alike, addressing whether the court should settle on a single universal standard for unconscionability, and what the governing formulation should be. Yet the majority ultimately sidestepped this issue, discerning no "conceptual difference" among the broad array of phrases it and other courts had used, which range from "so one-sided as to 'shock the conscience" (the standard Justice Chin's separate opinion would have adopted) to "overly harsh" or "unduly oppressive." The majority decided that the analysis ultimately depends on adverbs, which it helpfully emphasized:

A party cannot avoid a contractual obligation merely by complaining that the deal, in retrospect, was unfair or a bad bargain. Not all one-sided contract provisions are unconscionable; hence the various intensifiers in our formulations: "overly harsh," "unduly oppressive," "unreasonably favorable."

In the majority's view, "shocks the conscience" and the adverbial formulations "all mean the same thing." Thus, defendants can still argue that a provision is not unconscionable unless it shocks the conscience. And plaintiffs can argue about how intensifying the effect of an adverb must be in order to invalidate any clause that (like most provisions in contracts involving the exchange of asymmetrical obligations) is more favorable to one side than to the other. It's it's safe to say that California's law of unconscionability—at least in the arbitration context—will remain murky and unpredictable.

The other elephant in the room was the continuing validity of the California Supreme Court's Broughton-Cruz line of decisions, which exempt from arbitration claims for so-called "public" injunctive relief under California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Those decisions appear irreconcilable with the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Concepcion and American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant, as we have argued in a pair of amicus  briefs (pdf) and the Ninth Circuit has all but concluded. Although Broughton-Cruz, if not abrogated, arguably would apply to Sanchez's claims for injunctive relief under those two statutes, he did not argue the point in his briefing, and the court chose not to address it. That leaves the argument available to other plaintiffs, at least in state court—almost all federal district courts have rejected it. In fact, that is the next arbitration issue pending before the California Supreme Court in McGill v. Citibank.

In the arguments it did address, the California Supreme Court turned back one unconscionability challenge after another, though some of its holdings are carefully couched in the big-ticket-purchase context of the case. Thus, in rejecting a challenge to the provision requiring the appellant to bear the costs of an arbitral appeal, the court held that Sanchez—who was fighting over "a high-end luxury item"—had not shown that he qualified for the protection of a California statute limiting how much indigent consumers could be charged for arbitration (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1284.3), that his access to an appeal would be thwarted, or that the fee provision would have a "substantial deterrent effect" on his exercise of arbitral rights. The last factor is likely to be the subject of future litigation, especially given the disagreement between the majority and Justice Chin on that point.

The California Supreme Court also rejected the challenge to a provision limiting arbitral appeals to awards of zero or more than $100,000. In the context of auto-purchase disputes (which would rarely exceed $100,000 in value), the court found that provision not even one-sided, let alone unreasonably so. The court also upheld the provision allowing for arbitral appeals of awards of injunctive relief because (a) the provision could operate in the consumer's favor because the dealer in some circumstances would need injunctive relief to repossess (more precisely, to continue to hold) a car, and (b) the potentially sweeping effects of an injunction against the dealer warranted an additional layer of protection. These analyses were very fact-specific, suggesting that similar provisions might not be upheld in other contexts.

The court also upheld the carve-out for statutory nonjudicial repossession, noting that nothing in the agreement barred the provisional injunctive relief normally available pending arbitration under California law. In an important holding, the court determined that the unconscionability of an arbitration provision must be evaluated in the context of the remedies available if there were no arbitration agreement. Thus it was critical that the repossession self-help remedy, which the Legislature created and endorsed, is outside the litigation process altogether.

Finally, the court rejected Sanchez's argument that the severability clause in the arbitration provision amounted to a poison pill that invalidated the arbitration agreement. The clause said that the arbitration clause was unenforceable "[i]f a waiver of class action rights is deemed or found to be unenforceable for any reason." Sanchez contended that the erroneous pre-Concepcion holding of the trial court was sufficient to trigger this clause. The California Supreme Court disagreed: "[P]lainly the quoted provision was not meant to apply when a trial court erroneously holds the class waiver unenforceable and the error is corrected on appeal."

The bottom line is that the Sanchez opinion makes clear that businesses have a number of options available to them in crafting arbitration clauses tailored to particular types of consumer transactions. That said, the court's helpful steps in eliminating or undermining some common attacks on arbitration provisions may not necessarily lead to predictable results in other cases. In particular, the court's reliance on vague adverbs like "unduly" or "unreasonably," and its focus on the context of Sanchez's particular dispute, arguably leave room for California courts to scrutinize the particular features of particular arbitration provisions under the circumstances of each individual case.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2015. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

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.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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