May 21, 2012

Beware of What You Wish For: The Nationwide Class Action Trap

Companies that do business with consumers nationwide often hope to ensure uniformity in case of disputes. Likewise, those that primarily do business in Illinois may want to make sure they will be able to resolve all disputes in Illinois and that Illinois law will apply. As many companies are learning, that very rational approach is having unforeseen and dire consequences.

In order to ensure uniformity, a company might insert into its contracts, license agreements and other documents a clause requiring that all disputes be subject to Illinois law and be resolved either in the Illinois courts or before an Illinois arbitration panel. Some companies, however, are now finding out that this seemingly innocuous provision is used by resourceful plaintiff's counsel as a basis to file nationwide class actions. Although onerous consumer class actions have been generally disfavored under recent Illinois decisions (see Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.), plaintiff's counsel have been much more successful when a dispute resolution clause is involved. Indeed, this is what happened in Hall v. Sprint Spectrum LP, a very recent decision by the Illinois appellate court.

In that case, a nationwide class filed suit against Sprint, accusing the company of wrongful conduct in connection with the cancellation of telephone accounts. Because there was a contract provision mandating that Illinois law must apply to all customers, the plaintiffs were able to convince both the trial and appellate courts to certify a nationwide class, overcoming the obstacles that often prevent class certification in other similar cases.

Taking a lesson from the Sprint case, if your business sells products to consumers throughout the country and you include license agreements containing provisions that require, for example, the application of the law of a particular state, you should seriously reconsider that approach. Perhaps it would be sufficient simply to require that disputes be resolved in a particular state, but leave the question of the applicability of the law to be determined ad hoc. This model would give you the benefit of having your choice of forum and still allow you to defend against the certification of a nationwide class.

In this litigious age, even the most careful companies face the threat of class actions. One way to reduce your risk and lessen potential damages, especially for a nationwide class, is to revise your forum selection clauses. Uniformity is not always the best course.

© 2010 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

About the Author

Principal

Anthony C. Valiulis is an accomplished litigator with more than three decades of experience in a broad range of state and federal civil trial and appellate matters. A principal of the firm since 1979, Tony served as Chair of the Litigation & Dispute Resolution group for more than 20 years. His practice encompasses complex business and financial litigation, concentrating in four major areas: (1) business disputes, including non-...

312-521-2691

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.