JAMS recently has become the latest arbitral institution to publish rules tailored to the unique issues presented by mass arbitration filings.  Mass arbitration filings have become a popular tactic among plaintiffs’ lawyers and a significant source of potential exposure for companies.

Effective May 1, 2024, parties agreeing to arbitration under the JAMS Rules will be able to opt into the application of the Mass Arbitration Procedures and Guidelines (the “Procedures”) and an accompanying Mass Arbitration Procedures Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) for certain mass filings.  The Procedures and Fee Schedule include features similar to those available under the rules of other arbitral institutions, including the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”) and National Arbitration and Mediation, including the designation of a Process Administrator to hear and determine preliminary and administrative matters in a more streamlined and cost-efficient manner.  For JAMS to assign a Process Administrator, the parties must pay a flat fee of $7,500, at least $5,000 of which shall be paid by the business in consumer mass arbitrations.

We previously discussed here the AAA’s mass arbitration procedures, which were last updated on April 1.  The Procedures adopted by JAMS differ from the AAA’s current mass arbitration procedures in several notable ways, including those summarized in the table below.

 AAAJAMS
Definition of Mass Arbitration25 or more similar demands for arbitrations filed against or on behalf of the same party or related parties where representation of all parties is consistent or coordinated across arbitrations75 or more similar demands for arbitrations, or such other amount as specified in the parties’ agreement, filed against the same Party or related Parties by individual claimants represented by either the same law firm or law firms acting in coordination
Applicability of the Rules“whenever” the threshold for mass arbitration is metonly when the parties have opted into the application of the rules in a pre- or post-dispute written agreement
Filing Requirementseach demand must include complete contact information for all parties and representatives, and an affirmation that the information provided for each individual case is true and correct to the best of the representative’s knowledgeeach demand must include the first and last name, physical address and email address of the claimant, representative information, and a sworn declaration from counsel that the information in the demand is true and correct to the best of the representative’s knowledge
Feesbusiness to pay (1) a flat initiation fee of $8,125; (2) for cases that proceed beyond initiation, per case fees of $325 per case for the first 500 cases, $250 per case for cases 501 to 1,500, $175 per case for cases 1,501 to 3,000, and $100 per case for case 3,001 and beyond; (3) arbitration appointment fee of at least $450 per case; (4) final fee; and (5) arbitrator and mediator compensationbusiness to pay (1) a flat filing fee of at least $5,000 and up to $7,500; (2) for cases that proceed beyond initiation, arbitrator appointment fee of at least $2,000 per arbitrator appointed; (3) arbitrator compensation; and (4) case management fee assessed at 13% of arbitrator compensation
Sanctionsarbitrator may allocate compensation, including filing and hearing fees, if the arbitrator finds a party’s claim was filed for purposes of harassment or is patently frivolousarbitrator may order appropriate sanctions for a party’s failure to comply with the rules or with an order of the arbitrator; sanctions may include assessment of arbitration fees and expenses, and/or attorneys’ fees, exclusion of certain evidence, drawing adverse inferences, or adverse determination in extreme cases
Stay of Arbitration Pending Court Rulingautomatic stay of the mass arbitration for 60 days pending a court ruling if the party seeks judicial intervention within 30 days of the commencement of the arbitrationno automatic stays; the Process Administrator, after consulting with the parties’ representatives, may determine whether and for how long to suspend administration pending a court ruling
Mediationeven when one or both parties opt out of mediation, the AAA may, in its sole discretion, appoint a mediator to facilitate discussions between them on processes to improve efficiencyno mandatory mediation; “[w]hile mediation is always encouraged, the impetus of these Procedures is to enable the Process Administrator to work with the Parties to design a reasonable process so that cases can be heard as soon as practicable”

These differences underscore the importance of carefully comparing and considering potential arbitration providers when drafting arbitration agreements.  As the legal landscape around mass arbitrations continues to evolve, it will also be important for companies to stay up to date on new developments and to review their arbitration agreements on a regular basis.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Kathryn Cahoy Kathryn Cahoy

Kate Cahoy co-chairs the firm’s Class Actions Litigation Practice Group and serves on the leadership committee for the firm’s Technology Industry Group. She defends clients in complex, high-stakes class action disputes and has achieved significant victories across various industries, including technology, entertainment, consumer…

Kate Cahoy co-chairs the firm’s Class Actions Litigation Practice Group and serves on the leadership committee for the firm’s Technology Industry Group. She defends clients in complex, high-stakes class action disputes and has achieved significant victories across various industries, including technology, entertainment, consumer products, and financial services. Kate has also played a key role in developing the firm’s mass arbitration defense practice. She regularly advises companies on the risks associated with mass arbitration and has a proven track record of successfully defending clients against these challenges.

Leveraging her success in class action litigation and arbitration, Kate helps clients develop strategic and innovative solutions to their most challenging legal issues. She has extensive experience litigating cases brought under California’s Section 17200 and other consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws, including the Sherman Act, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), along with common law and constitutional rights of privacy, among others.

Recent Successes:

Represented Meta (formerly Facebook) in a putative nationwide advertiser class action alleging violations under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) related to charges from allegedly “fake” accounts. Successfully narrowed claims at the pleadings stage, defeated class certification, opposed a Rule 23(f) petition, won summary judgment, and defended the victory on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Daily Journal selected Covington’s defense of Meta as one of its 2021 Top Verdicts, and Law.com recognized Kate as a Litigator of the Week Shoutout.
Defeated a landmark class action lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI contending that the defendants scraped data from the internet for training generative AI services and incorporated data from users’ prompts, allegedly in violation of CIPA, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and other privacy and consumer protection laws.

Kate regularly contributes to the firm’s blog, Inside Class Actions, and was recently featured in a Litigation Daily interview titled “Where Privacy Laws and Litigation Trends Collide.” In recognition of her achievements in privacy and antitrust class action litigation, the Daily Journal named her as one of their Top Antitrust Lawyers (2024), Top Cyber Lawyers (2022), and Top Women Lawyers in California (2023). Additionally, she received the Women of Influence award from the Silicon Valley Business Journal and was recognized by Daily Journal as a Top Attorney Under 40.

Photo of Kanu Song Kanu Song

Kanu Song is a litigator who represents clients in the technology and life sciences industries in complex, high-stakes matters, including data privacy class actions, trade secret litigation, copyright and trademark disputes, and actions brought under unfair competition and consumer protection laws. She has…

Kanu Song is a litigator who represents clients in the technology and life sciences industries in complex, high-stakes matters, including data privacy class actions, trade secret litigation, copyright and trademark disputes, and actions brought under unfair competition and consumer protection laws. She has substantive experience in all stages of litigation, including arbitrations and appeals, with a strong track record of success on dispositive motions.

Kanu also maintains an active pro bono practice focused on serving women and children, and assisting individuals and small businesses with intellectual property disputes.

Photo of Kaixin Fan Kaixin Fan

Kaixin Fan is a member of the Food, Drug, and Device Practice Group. She advises pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device companies as well as trade associations in regulatory matters. She has experience in matters relating to FDA informed consent requirements, advertising and promotion…

Kaixin Fan is a member of the Food, Drug, and Device Practice Group. She advises pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device companies as well as trade associations in regulatory matters. She has experience in matters relating to FDA informed consent requirements, advertising and promotion issues, and other aspects of U.S. federal and state regulation of pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Kaixin also assists clients in navigating complex regulatory matters in China, and works closely with local counsel in other Asia-Pacific jurisdictions. She has supported life science transactions by evaluating regulatory compliance of companies and advising on commercial agreements.

Kaixin maintains an active pro bono practice, with experience in the areas of housing, reproductive rights, and gender-based violence.