Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. v. Skot Heckman, et al.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires courts to “place arbitration agreements on an equal footing with other contracts” and “enforce them according to their terms.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011). The FAA thus gives parties wide “discretion in designing arbitration processes” that offer “efficient, streamlined procedures tailored to the type of dispute” at hand. Id. at 344. Recently, plaintiffs’ firms have exerted massive settlement pressure and overwhelmed arbitration providers by simultaneously filing thousands of materially identical arbitration claims. Arbitration providers have responded by adopting new procedures designed to process mass filings fairly and efficiently. In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit stated that “the FAA simply does not apply to and protect” alternative arbitration procedures that “did not exist in 1925,” when the statute was enacted. App.30a. And applying California’s arbitrationfocused severability doctrine, the Ninth Circuit deemed the parties’ entire arbitration agreement unenforceable, as a supposedly “‘systematic effort to impose arbitration’” as “‘an inferior forum.’” App.28a. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the FAA protects all arbitration agreements (as this Court and five circuits have stated) or only a subset of traditional, bilateral arbitration agreements that the FAA’s drafters specifically envisioned (as the Ninth Circuit stated).

2. Whether the FAA preempts California’s severability doctrine because it specifically targets and disproportionately invalidates arbitration agreements.