The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinforces the validity of arbitration clauses, but leaves door open for public injunction challenges (Kilgore)

In the U.S., pre-dispute arbitration clauses are common in consumer financial services agreements, such as credit card, banking and investment contracts. These clauses traditionally compel the involved parties to resolve any legal dispute in arbitration, while foreclosing traditional state and federal court arenas. A 2004 study found that nearly seventy percent of consumer financial services agreements contain such clauses. These clauses tend not to be favourable to individual consumers. Sitting en banc, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Kilgore v. KeyBank Nat’l Assn., recently applied the legal framework surrounding the validity of arbitration clauses in the context of consumer financial services agreements. Issued on April 11, 2013, the Kilgore decision

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (Washington)

Quotation

Helen Wong, The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinforces the validity of arbitration clauses, but leaves door open for public injunction challenges (Kilgore), 11 April 2013, e-Competitions Bulletin US Private Enforcement, Art. N° 52242

Visites 125

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues