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

Myriam E. Gilles, Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, has published Individualized Injunctions and No-Modification Terms: Challenging ‘Anti-Reform’ Provisions in Arbitration Clauses, University of Miami Law Review, 2014 (Forthcoming); Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 437.  In her paper, Professor Gilles examines whether arbitration clauses that prohibit an individual from seeking injunctive relief from an arbitrator are enforceable.

Here is the 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.

This and other scholarly articles authored by Professor Gilles may be downloaded free of charge from the Social Science Research Network.

Photo credit: cousine4everkis / Foter / Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0)