A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Reuters reports, “The Supreme Court to review American Express Arbitration case”

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

(Reuters) The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether American Express Co (AXP.N) may invoke an arbitration clause to prevent merchant customers from banding together in an antitrust lawsuit against the company.

The court accepted the credit card and travel services company’s appeal from a February ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that voided the clause, and allowed merchants including the Italian Colors Restaurant in Oakland, California to pursue a class-action lawsuit.

A decision could determine the extent to which companies might rely on arbitration clauses to fend off class-action lawsuits, which can allow litigants to obtain larger recoveries at lower cost.

Since 1999, American Express has required merchant customers to waive their right to sue the company in a class action.

But a group of restaurants, retailers and other customers sued in 2003, saying the New York-based company violated antitrust law in its effort to force them to pay inflated fees on charge card transactions.

A two-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit said the company’s mandatory arbitration clause violated antitrust law, because many merchants would find it economically unfeasible to pursue their claims individually.

American Express said that ruling created a “sweeping, unwritten loophole” in federal arbitration law that should be overturned.

The Supreme Court has in recent years shown deference to arbitration clauses, while narrowing the ability of various plaintiffs to bring class-action lawsuits.

In a 2011 case involving AT&T Inc (T.N), the court gave businesses a big victory by upholding contracts that required customers to submit to individual arbitrations to resolve disputes, and waive their right to pursue class-action litigation. A California law had prohibited such waivers.

The same year, the court decertified a class of as many as 1.5 million female workers at Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N) who alleged gender bias in pay and promotions.

The Supreme Court will likely hear oral arguments in the American Express case early next year, with a decision to follow by the end of June.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was involved with the case when she was a federal appeals court judge, did not take part in the decision to accept American Express’ appeal.

The case is American Express Co et al v. Italian Colors Restaurant et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-133.

(Reporting by Terry Baynes and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Nick Zieminski)

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.