Individualized Injunctions and No-Modification Terms: Challenging "Anti-Reform" Provisions in Arbitration Clauses

Authors

Myriam E. Gilles, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of LawFollow

Publication Date

Winter 2015

Journal

University of Miami Law Review

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and American Express v. Italian Colors have considered only whether class actions for monetary damages may be barred by arbitration clauses requiring individual adjudication. The Justices have not examined the enforceability of arbitration clauses or arbitral rules which explicitly prohibit claimants from seeking or arbitrators from granting broad injunctive relief in an individual dispute. I term these "anti-reform" provisions because they broadly prohibit an individual arbitral claimant from seeking to end a practice, change a rule, or enjoin an act that causes injury to itself and to similarly-situated non-parties. This essay is the first to consider the enforceability of such provisions, and to provide a framework for analyzing their enforceability.

Volume

69

First Page

469

Publisher

University of Miami School of Law

Keywords

arbitration, consumer law, class actions, remedies

Disciplines

Contracts | Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | Jurisprudence | Law | Legal Remedies | Legislation

Recommended Citation

Myriam E. Gilles, Individualized Injunctions and No-Modification Terms: Challenging "Anti-Reform" Provisions in Arbitration Clauses, 69 U. Miami L. Rev. 469 (2015).
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/777