But We Didn’t Agree to That!: Why Class Proceedings Should Not Be Implied from Silent or Ambiguous Arbitration Clauses After Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela

Authors

Andrea DeMelo Laprade, Catholic University of America (Student)Follow

Abstract

The application of class arbitrability when a contract is silent on the matter remains a mystery. The Supreme Court has not clarified its stance on class arbitrability and preemptive effects of the Federal Arbitration Act on state law when applied to determine if class arbitrability is available. The purpose of this Paper is to address how the Lamps Plus v. Varela decision created more confusion about the question of class arbitrability. It argues that the failure to address the particulars of the availability of class arbitration will perpetuate litigation on this issue. This Paper suggests that the FAA’s purpose supports the Court’s presumption against class arbitration if the parties do not agree to it during the contracting process and that the use of contra proferentem to create class arbitration is therefore contrary to the FAA’s purpose.

Recommended Citation

Andrea D. Laprade, But We Didn’t Agree to That!: Why Class Proceedings Should Not Be Implied from Silent or Ambiguous Arbitration Clauses After Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 70 Cath. U. L. Rev. 697 (2021).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol70/iss4/10