Companies Expand Mandatory Arbitration to Retail Consumers

By: Mike Wolak

Binding arbitration clauses are an important and effective tool for businesses to avoid the high costs and risks of protracted litigation and consumer class actions. Used more commonly in employment and commercial contract situations, many companies are now expanding mandatory arbitration to customer agreements including retail sales.

For example, General Mills - maker of popular cereals such as Cheerios and Wheaties - recently announced and then backed off of its decision to add a binding arbitration clause and class action waiver to the terms of its website. With food companies facing consumer class actions alleging false and misleading food labels (e.g., claims of "organic" or "all natural"), General Mills added a pop-up banner announcement to its website that purported to bind consumers to arbitration simply by using its website to - among other things - view product offerings, download coupons, join its Facebook page, or enter a sweepstakes. While consumers could choose to opt-out if they notified General Mills in writing, the new terms sparked consumer and media outrage. General Mills defended its new policy but chose to remove the new terms to keep its customers happy.

In attempting to expand the reach of a mandatory arbitration agreement, General Mills was only the latest example of novel uses of such agreements following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), which struck down California's judicial rule invalidating class action waivers in arbitration agreements. In the wake of AT&T Mobility, companies understandably continue to expand their efforts to invoke the benefits of mandatory arbitration with their customers. Not only does arbitration often offer a faster and cheaper forum to litigate disputes, properly worded agreements can eliminate the possibility of a massive class action claim which is many companies most significant litigation risk.

While General Mills removed its new website terms before they were subjected to judicial scrutiny, we will likely see other food companies implement similar arbitration terms to their websites and/or food labels. This will certainly raise the question of whether consumers "consented" to the arbitration clause simply by purchasing a food product off the shelf or surfing a food company's website to download coupons. Indeed, AT&T Mobility and its progeny generally involved an arbitration clause in a contract signed by the consumer.

As food and other companies continue to seek to bind consumers to binding arbitration, we will likely see their attempts tested in the courts. Stay tuned.


Supreme Court Reaffirms Use Of Deadly Force To Terminate Dangerous High Speed Pursuits

Lessons to Learn from the 2013 Data Breach Reports

Companies Expand Mandatory Arbitration to Retail Consumers

FLSA Cases Climb to All-Time High With No End in Sight

Learn more about FMG

CGL and Business Liability

Commercial and Complex Litigation

Construction and Design Law

Financial Services and Securities

Insurance Coverage and Extra-Contractual Liability

Government Law

Labor and Employment Law

Professional Liability / Errors and Omissions

Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP
100 Galleria Parkway
Suite 1600
Atlanta, Georgia 30339-5948

Tel: 770.818.0000 / Fax: 770.937.9960

Copyright © 2016 Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP Click here to print the article.