California District Court says payday lender’s arbitration provision is unconscionable 

From Lexology, Buckley LLP reports on a decision in which an arbitration was found to be unenforceable. Parties entering into arbitration agreements should be careful to ensure the agreement is not unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable. Buckley LLP writes:

The lender moved to compel arbitration asserting that the consumers’ loan agreements contain prohibitions on class actions in court or in arbitration, require arbitration of any claims arising from a dispute related to the agreement, and disallow consumers from acting as a “private attorney general.”

The court then determined that the arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable because, even though the consumers had a 30-day opt-out window, it required them to waive statutory causes of action “before they knew any such claims existed.” Finally, because the provision contained a waiver of public injunctive relief, the court determined it was substantively unconscionable based on the California Supreme Court decision in McGill v. Citibank, N.A (covered by a Buckley Special Alert here). The court rejected the lender’s arguments that McGill was preempted under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), noting a 2015 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, “effectively controls” the dispute and the 9th Circuit reasoned that a similar state-law rule against waivers was not preempted by the FAA. Lastly, the court held that the unconscionable public injunctive relief waiver provision was not severable from the entire arbitration provision, because the agreement contained “poison pill” language that would invalidate the entirety of the arbitration provision.

Read the full story at: California District Court says payday lender’s arbitration provision is unconscionable – Lexology

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.