Halunen Law Plays Key Role as Co-counsel in Victory for Consumer Rights and Arbitration
Halunen Law plays key role as co-counsel in victory for consumer rights and arbitration
Many companies include forced arbitration clauses and class action waivers in their contracts or terms of service. They do this to block consumers from banding together and holding them accountable in court when disputes arise, instead forcing them to proceed on an individual basis in private arbitration. These clauses overwhelmingly favor corporations, who win the majority of individual arbitration proceedings. And when consumers do win, the monetary awards they receive are often far less than sufficient to cover the damages they have suffered. Adding insult to injury, there is virtually never a right to appeal an arbitrator’s award, and the consumer is simply stuck with that award, even if it unfair, illogical, or legally wrong.
Experian is one of many companies trying to tilt the playing field in its favor by using an arbitration clause, which it tried to enforce after it promised, but refused to provide, a free credit report to a Sean Devries, who was then forced to pay for the report. Experian’s failure to provide the free report violated federal law (specifically the Fair Credit Reporting Act), but when Mr. Devries retained Halunen Law and took Experian to court, Experian filed a motion to compel arbitration, asking the court to dismiss the case. The court granted that motion, and sent the case to arbitration. Halunen attorneys objected to that decision, arguing that, under California law, Experian’s arbitration clause could not be applied to DeVries’ claims for public injunctive relief (which essentially seek an order requiring Experian to halt its unlawful conduct and disgorge the profits it has wrongfully received, thereby protecting a broad class of consumers). The arbitrator agreed, and ordered those claims back to court, where DeVries will get a full and fair opportunity to litigate them. This is an important victory for consumers in California, and it confirms that the scope of arbitration clauses is not unlimited.
Read the Order here. (PDF download)
On October 2, 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied Samsung’s appeals from two joint decisions by the Ninth Circuit of Appeals on Norcia v. Samsung Telecoms. Am. LLC, 845 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2017) and Dang v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 673 F. App’x 7798 (9th Cir. 2017). Before 
With abounding energy and a quest to unearth the details, Halunen Law attorney Charles Moore brings analytic skills and insight to each class action case. His work includes cases involving consumer products, financial scams, and pharmaceuticals. Seeing his work impact not just consumers, but our society as a whole drives his steadfast determination.
Mandatory arbitration and class action lawsuits are much in the news lately. The recent disclosure of the hacking at Equifax has people thinking about these topics, and some class actions have already been filed. 
This recent posting by Public Justice shows the importance of preserving the class action mechanism from arbitration clauses that prohibit class actions. Individual consumers often do not have the resources to challenge illegal conduct by a large corporation. In the attached story, if class actions were not available, military personnel would not have been able to challenge a blatant violation of the law by the Bank of America.
In the ever-evolving world of consumer purchasing, companies are placing contracts in increasingly inconspicuous places. And the small print document that came with your recent electronics purchase, chances are it includes an arbitration clause. The clause likely prevents the purchaser from filing a lawsuit against the manufacturer in court, and allows for resolution of disputes only by a paid arbitrator. More than ever companies are attempting to force consumers to arbitrate any and all disputes by burying an arbitration clause deep within a booklet contained in a “shrink wrapped” product box—and if you don’t reject the clause within a certain period of time, you are deemed to have agreed with it. At Halunen Law, we think that’s not right.
