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
免責聲明: XM Group提供線上交易平台的登入和執行服務，允許個人查看和/或使用網站所提供的內容，但不進行任何更改或擴展其服務和訪問權限，並受以下條款與條例約束：（i）條款與條例；（ii）風險提示；（iii）完全免責聲明。網站內部所提供的所有資訊，僅限於一般資訊用途。請注意，我們所有的線上交易平台內容並不構成，也不被視為進入金融市場交易的邀約或邀請 。金融市場交易會對您的投資帶來重大風險。
所有缐上交易平台所發佈的資料，僅適用於教育/資訊類用途，不包含也不應被視爲適用於金融、投資稅或交易相關諮詢和建議，或是交易價格紀錄，或是任何金融商品或非應邀途徑的金融相關優惠的交易邀約或邀請。
本網站的所有XM和第三方所提供的内容，包括意見、新聞、研究、分析、價格其他資訊和第三方網站鏈接，皆爲‘按原狀’，並作爲一般市場評論所提供，而非投資建議。請理解和接受，所有被歸類為投資研究範圍的相關内容，並非爲了促進投資研究獨立性，而根據法律要求所編寫，而是被視爲符合營銷傳播相關法律與法規所編寫的内容。請確保您已詳讀並完全理解我們的非獨立投資研究提示和風險提示資訊，相關詳情請點擊 這裡查看。
