The Perils of Piecemeal Invocation of Arbitration Rights

October 7, 2022

One of the most enduring legacies of the Roberts court may be its enshrinement of the supremacy of arbitration agreements, even in cases where arbitration may not offer plaintiffs a plausible avenue of redress. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has required the enforcement of arbitration provisions in so-called "contracts of adhesion" with class action waivers,[1] and in complex antitrust and other commercial cases where the cost of individual arbitration may be prohibitively high.[2]

[1] AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011); see also Stolt-Nielsen S.A. et al v. Animalfeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) (holding that arbitrator could not impose classwide arbitration on parties that had not specifically agreed to it).

[2] Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228 (2013).


The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.


Stephen P. Safranski


Co-Chair, Antitrust and Trade Regulation Group

Back to Top