HB Ad Slot HB Mobile Ad Slot Geoffrey A. Friedman Email617.348.3096Bio and Articles Matthew C. HurleyEmail617-348-4939Bio and Articles HB Ad Slot Fashion Nova’s Arbitration Clause Fades Away by: Geoffrey A. Friedman , Matthew C. Hurley of Mintz - Friday, March 1, 2024 Related Practices & Jurisdictions Litigation / Trial PracticeADR / Arbitration / MediationCommunications, Media & Internet 9th Circuit (incl. bankruptcy) Print Mail Download i Online retailers routinely include arbitration clauses in the terms of service for their website, seeking to send any consumer claims to arbitration and to eliminate a consumer’s right to file a class action lawsuit. Companies adopting this approach—and indeed, the drafters of any arbitration clause—should pay careful attention to the questions of (1) who will decide whether particular claims are subject to arbitration; and (2) the scope of any carve-outs from the arbitration provision, as the recent decision in Dembiczak v. Fashion Nova, LLC demonstrates.[1] The Dembiczak case is a putative class action alleging that Fashion Nova falsely advertised discounts on its products. After the plaintiff filed suit in federal district court, Fashion Nova sought to compel the plaintiff to arbitrate her claims based on the Terms of Service on the company’s website, which require arbitration in certain instances. Initially, the court confronted the question of which decisionmaker decides the scope of the arbitration provision, or the “arbitrability” of the dispute at hand. The court applied the long-standing rule that a court should decide this threshold question unless “there is clear and unmistakable evidence” that the parties delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Parties often seek to delegate this question to the arbitrator by incorporating in their agreements the rules of an arbitral forum that does so, like the rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). Although Fashion Nova attempted to incorporate the AAA rules for consumers in its terms of service, the court found that the version of the AAA “rules” cited by Fashion Nova did not in fact exist. Finding Fashion Nova’s incorporation of AAA rules anything but “clear and unmistakable,” the court determined that it, and not an arbitrator, had the authority to decide whether plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration. The court then concluded that the plain language of Fashion Nova’s Terms of Service had a carveout for injunctive relief that removed plaintiff’s entire putative class action from the scope of the arbitration provision. The court’s decision turned primarily on language in the Terms of Service providing that “an action by a party for temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief” is one category of disputes that “shall not be subject to arbitration.” This language, the court reasoned, was more expansive than if Fashion Nova had carved out only “a claim” seeking injunctive relief. Because the plaintiff sought injunctive relief on behalf of the putative class, the court concluded that this was “an action by a party” seeking injunctive relief and denied the motion to compel arbitration. Whether or not one agrees with the court’s interpretation of the Fashion Nova arbitration provision, the decision underscores the need for precision in the drafting of any arbitration provision. With respect to providing “clear and unmistakable evidence” of intent to delegate questions of arbitrability, drafters of an arbitration provision must either (a) explicitly delegate this gateway question to the arbitrators, in the text of the arbitration provision itself; or (b) explicitly and clearly incorporate the rules of an arbitral forum that supports delegation and ensure that the cited rules continue to exist and are readily identifiable. The court’s decision also strongly suggests that, had Fashion Nova carved out “claims” or the “remedy” of injunctive relief instead of “actions” seeking injunctive relief, the outcome of the arbitration question would have been different. Expect further developments on both of these key issues as courts across the country continue to grapple with the meaning of delegation and carveout clauses of arbitration provisions. [1] 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25115 (W.D. Wa. Feb. 13, 2024). ©1994-2024 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved. HB Ad Slot HB Mobile Ad Slot Current Legal Analysis Are the USPTO’s Proposed Terminal Disclaimer Fees the End of Continuing Applications? by: Frank L. Bernstein Episode 64: The FTC’s Non-Compete Decree by: Jordan D. Grotzinger , Gregory S. Bombard District Court Strikes Portions of Inglewood’s Healthcare Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance by: Jonathan A. Siegel , Allen F. Acosta The USPTO Proposes Steep RCE Fees. Will Patent Prosecution and Appeal Strategies Change? by: Frank L. Bernstein , Michael Adams Reminder: San Francisco Employer Annual Reporting Form Due May 3 by: Harold R. Jones , Julia A. Olivier HB Ad Slot HB Mobile Ad Slot More from Mintz Energy & Sustainability Washington Update — May 2024 by: R. Neal Martin HIPAA Privacy Protections for PHI related to Reproductive Health Care: The Final Rule and what Covered Entities and Business Associates need to Know by: Cassandra L. Paolillo DOL Releases Final Rule Substantially Increasing Minimum Salary Thresholds for Most Exempt Employees by: H. Andrew Matzkin , Evan M. Piercey Federal Circuit Affirms Obviousness of Rifaximin Polymorph Patents and Denial of Motion to Modify Judgment After Post-Trial Patented Indication Carve Out by: Joseph D. Rutkowski , Peter J. Cuomo In Split Vote, FTC Approves Controversial Final Rule Banning Most Post-Employment Non-Competes; Rule Already Subject to Challenge in Court by: Talia R. Weseley , Danielle M. Bereznay EU Imposes ESG Compliance Requirements for Companies' Supply Chains by: Jacob H. Hupart DOJ’s Criminal Division Announces Pilot Program on Voluntary Self-Disclosure for Individuals by: Eoin P. Beirne , Nick A. LaPalme CMS Publishes Final Rules Implementing Part C and Part D Program Changes by: Tara E. Dwyer , Bridgette A. Keller USPTO Issues Guidance on AI Use to Patent Professionals — AI: The Washington Report by: Terri Shieh-Newton, PhD , Bruce D. Sokler Some Harm is All it Takes – the Supreme Court Lowers the Bar for Title VII Discrimination Claims Involving Lateral Job Transfers by: Paul M. Huston , Delaney M. Busch Upcoming Legal Education Events Jun 4 2024 FinTech and Securities Trading Platforms May 22 2024 California Labor and Employment Laws: Essential Insights | Union Rules For Non-Union Workforces May 17 2024 Upon Further Review: A Look Back at the Last Year in the Third, Fourth, and D.C. Circuits May 15 2024 Capital Connect: Finance & Funding in Life Sciences HB Ad Slot HB Mobile Ad Slot Print