Samsung defeats consumers’ mass arbitration demand in US appeals court
By Mike Scarcella
July 2 (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court has reversed a decision that would have required Samsung Electronics to pay millions of dollars in arbitration fees to respond to thousands of consumer privacy claims.
In a case that could help define the scope of consumer mass arbitration, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday overturned a lower court decision that said Samsung must arbitrate the consumers’ claims and pay administrative fees in the process.
The unanimous three-judge panel said the plaintiffs had not shown they had valid arbitration agreements. The panel also said the order requiring Samsung to pay administrative fees was beyond the power of the trial judge.
Samsung and lawyers for the consumers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The appeals court’s order was a setback for tens of thousands of Illinois consumers who sought to pursue their privacy claims through arbitration rather than in court.
The plaintiffs sued Samsung in U.S. federal court in 2022, seeking an order compelling the device maker to arbitrate claims that it was violating a state law that curbs the collection and use of personal biometric information such as facial scans and fingerprints.
Samsung has denied the allegations, calling them "frivolous."
Samsung in its appeal challenged the consumers’ contention that they had valid arbitration agreements. The company also disputed that it had refused to arbitrate.
The appeals court said the consumers had not presented enough information to confirm they were Samsung purchasers. The court said a spreadsheet of names and addresses was not enough to prove the consumers were Samsung customers.
Consumer information such as receipts and order numbers would have proved an arbitration agreement, the appeals panel said.
The consumers had argued that the court had no power to hear the appeal since the trial judge ordered the dispute into arbitration. They also argued that they should be given a chance in the lower court to prove that the 35,651 Illinois consumers who filed arbitration demands had valid agreements.
“The consumers had the opportunity to present their evidence, and they failed to do so,” wrote Circuit Judge Thomas Kirsch II, joined by Chief Judge Diane Sykes and Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook.
The appeals court said that the status of the case“does not allow second chances.”
The case is Paula Wallrich et al v. Samsung Electronics America et al, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-2842.
For Wallrich: Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler
For Samsung: Shay Dvoretzky of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
Read more:
In Live Nation case, appeals court mulls mass arbitration breakthrough
Samsung asks US court to block mass arbitration in privacy case
Fox's Tubi sues law firm over 'manufactured' mass arbitration claims
Ativos relacionados
Últimas notícias
Isenção de Responsabilidade: As entidades do XM Group proporcionam serviço de apenas-execução e acesso à nossa plataforma online de negociação, permitindo a visualização e/ou uso do conteúdo disponível no website ou através deste, o que não se destina a alterar ou a expandir o supracitado. Tal acesso e uso estão sempre sujeitos a: (i) Termos e Condições; (ii) Avisos de Risco; e (iii) Termos de Responsabilidade. Este, é desta forma, fornecido como informação generalizada. Particularmente, por favor esteja ciente que os conteúdos da nossa plataforma online de negociação não constituem solicitação ou oferta para iniciar qualquer transação nos mercados financeiros. Negociar em qualquer mercado financeiro envolve um nível de risco significativo de perda do capital.
Todo o material publicado na nossa plataforma de negociação online tem apenas objetivos educacionais/informativos e não contém — e não deve ser considerado conter — conselhos e recomendações financeiras, de negociação ou fiscalidade de investimentos, registo de preços de negociação, oferta e solicitação de transação em qualquer instrumento financeiro ou promoção financeira não solicitada direcionadas a si.
Qual conteúdo obtido por uma terceira parte, assim como o conteúdo preparado pela XM, tais como, opiniões, pesquisa, análises, preços, outra informação ou links para websites de terceiras partes contidos neste website são prestados "no estado em que se encontram", como um comentário de mercado generalizado e não constitui conselho de investimento. Na medida em que qualquer conteúdo é construído como pesquisa de investimento, deve considerar e aceitar que este não tem como objetivo e nem foi preparado de acordo com os requisitos legais concebidos para promover a independência da pesquisa de investimento, desta forma, deve ser considerado material de marketing sob as leis e regulações relevantes. Por favor, certifique-se que leu e compreendeu a nossa Notificação sobre Pesquisa de Investimento não-independente e o Aviso de Risco, relativos à informação supracitada, os quais podem ser acedidos aqui.
