Mandatory Arbitration Challenges: A Legal Analysis by Jeremy Robinson
Originally Published in Daily Journal: November 9, 2015
Introduction to Mandatory Arbitration Issues
Jeremy Robinson, a legal innovator reshaping consumer protection law at Savin Hennessey & Kim LLP, examines the intricate challenges posed by mandatory arbitration clauses. Known for his precedent-setting victories and analytical prowess, Robinson has become a catalyst for systemic change in consumer protection law.
The Current State of Mandatory Arbitration
In this compelling analysis for the Daily Journal, “Battles expose core problems with arbitration system,” Robinson examines the intricate challenges posed by mandatory arbitration clauses through the lens of recent 23andMe cases. The article illuminates the fundamental tensions between private arbitration and due process, highlighting how these clauses often extend beyond their intended purpose.
Key Findings from the 23andMe Cases
Robinson’s analysis centers on the recent cases filed against 23andMe, which provide a unique window into the complexities of mandatory arbitration. These cases demonstrate the challenges that arise when multiple arbitrators reach conflicting decisions, and when courts have limited ability to intervene in the arbitration process.
Historical Context and Evolution
The article expertly traces the evolution of mandatory arbitration issues, beginning with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which effectively allowed companies to eliminate class actions through arbitration clauses. This foundation has led to the current landscape where companies increasingly implement these clauses in various transactions.
Critical Issues Identified
Robinson’s examination is particularly relevant as government regulators and legislators continue to evaluate the impact of mandatory arbitration. His analysis of the 23andMe cases reveals several critical issues in the current system:
- The lack of due process considerations in mandatory arbitration
- The absence of effective appellate review
- The complexity of arbitration clauses for laypeople
- The questionable voluntary nature of mandatory arbitration provisions
About the Author
Jeremy Robinson is an award-winning attorney recognized for his mastery of legal research, writing, and strategy. His precedent-setting success in Bolger v. Amazon.com (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 431 earned him the Consumer Advocate of the Year award in 2021 from the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, following his 2016 President’s Award. His work has been featured in Bloomberg, The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, and CNBC.
Robinson has co-authored significant amicus briefs with Public Justice in key appeals involving Amazon and secured crucial rulings in cases like M.F. v. Pacific Pearly Hotel Management, LLC (2017). Admitted to all California courts and the Third, Fifth, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, he has successfully steered hundreds of complex cases to resolution throughout his 27-year career.
A prolific writer and speaker on emerging legal issues, Robinson regularly contributes to the Daily Journal and Daily Transcript, delivers CLE-approved presentations, and has authored a book chapter. Beyond his legal work, he is a musician, father of two, and puzzle enthusiast.
Read the original published analysis in the Daily Journal.
Contact Jeremy Robinson at SHK Law
Ready to discuss your case? Schedule a free case evaluation with Jeremy Robinson.
SHK LAW – SAVIN HENNESSEY & KIM
15915 Ventura Blvd, Suite 201
Encino, California 91436
Phone: (818) 960-0011