“To invalidate or bar enforcement of a contract based on unconscionability, the party challenging the contract must show both an absence of meaningful choice, also referred to as procedural unconscionability, and contract terms that are unreasonably favorable to the other party, known as substantive unconscionability.”  The Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld a trial court’s finding that

The Supreme Court in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. held that a demand for arbitration must be timely raised. Courts should raise waiver if a party fails to raise arbitration at the earliest opportunity. Morgan argued that Sundance waived its right to arbitrate. The Eighth Circuit found no waiver because Morgan was not prejudiced. However, prejudice

Good news! The U.S. Supreme Court adopted a narrow view of federal jurisdiction in Badgerow v. Walters, issued March 31, 2022. The issue was federal jurisdiction for arbitration. Circuit courts were split on whether the same jurisdictional standard applies to compel arbitration and to enforce or vacate an award. Jurisdiction and Arbitration The Court narrowed the

Arbitration Prevents Economic Justice The Regulatory Review reported on a six-part series entitled Promoting Economic Justice. Remington A. Gregg wrote the article about arbitration and economic justice. Gregg served as counsel for civil justice and consumer rights at Public Citizen until March 2022. Below are excerpts from the article. Pre-dispute binding arbitration clauses and class action