What is the difference between AAA and JAMS mass arbitration rules?

AAA requires 25 or more coordinated claims and charges an $8,125 flat initiation fee. JAMS requires 75 or more claims and charges a $5,000 minimum. AAA mandates global mediation; JAMS does not.

How do I start a mass arbitration digital marketing campaign?

Contact Brian Beck at Overdeliver Media LLC at bbeck@overdelivermediallc.com for a consultation on claimant acquisition strategy, paid digital campaigns, landing page development, and intake funnel optimization.

What is an arbitration agreement?

An arbitration agreement is a contract clause that requires disputes to be resolved through private arbitration rather than in court. Most include a class action waiver. After the Supreme Court's Epic Systems ruling in 2018, plaintiffs firms began using these clauses as the foundation for mass arbitration campaigns — filing thousands of individual demands simultaneously to generate fee pressure on corporate defendants.

Which companies have faced mass arbitration campaigns?

Major companies that have faced mass arbitration campaigns include Amazon (75,000+ Alexa privacy demands — dropped its arbitration clause in 2021), DoorDash (6,250 gig worker demands — ordered to pay $9.5M in fees), Intuit/TurboTax (200,000 demands), Facebook/Meta (BIPA biometric data — $650M settlement), Snap ($35M settlement), Samsung (Wallrich — claimant burden ruling), Live Nation/Ticketmaster (New Era ADR struck down), and Sega (19,541 JAMS demands — $39M invoice dispute ongoing).

What is the Wallrich v. Samsung ruling and why does it matter?

Wallrich v. Samsung (7th Cir. 2024) held that claimants must demonstrate they actually agreed to the arbitration clause they are invoking before a court will compel arbitration. Samsung refused to pay AAA fees for 50,000 demands, and the Seventh Circuit ruled claimants had not met their burden of proof. The ruling means plaintiffs firms must maintain rigorous documentation — proof of account, purchase, and agreement acceptance — for every claimant to survive a threshold standing challenge.

Mass Arbitration Claims | Arbitration Attorney Resource

Q: How many mass arbitration claims were filed in 2024?

Over 280,000 individual claims were filed under mass arbitration umbrellas with the AAA in 2024, across 92 separate mass arbitration cases.

Q: How does mass arbitration work step by step?

Mass arbitration works in five steps: (1) Attorneys identify a company with a mandatory arbitration clause and class action waiver. (2) Thousands of qualifying claimants are recruited through digital marketing. (3) Individual demands are filed simultaneously with AAA or JAMS. (4) The company faces unavoidable per-claim filing fees that can reach millions of dollars. (5) Most cases settle — 59% in 2024 — because the fee exposure makes fighting each claim more expensive than resolving them globally.

Expert Insights

What the 2024 Data Actually Tells Us About Mass Arbitration

Insight #1

The leverage is in the filing — not the hearing room

Only 1% of consumer mass arbitration cases closed in 2024 with a formal award. Yet 59% settled. The math is clear: companies settle to avoid fees, not because they lose on the merits. This is the entire theory of the case.

— Brian Beck, Overdeliver Media LLC

Insight #2

Scale is the moat — digital marketing is the drawbridge

Keller Postman didn't beat Amazon with better legal arguments. They beat them with 75,000 claimants. In mass arbitration, the firm that can recruit 50,000 claimants instead of 500 has exponentially more settlement leverage. That's a marketing problem, not a legal one.

— Brian Beck, Overdeliver Media LLC

Insight #3

Privacy law is the next major wave — BIPA, VPPA, CIPA

Gaming and entertainment led 2024 with 100,000+ cases. But the next wave is privacy — biometric data (BIPA), video privacy (VPPA), and California wiretapping (CIPA). Every app, streaming service, and healthcare platform with a tracking pixel is a potential target. Firms entering now are early.

— Brian Beck, Overdeliver Media LLC

Insight #4

The corporate counter-offensive is real — but mostly losing

Companies are fighting back with bellwether provisions, fee non-payment (Samsung), and suing plaintiffs' firms (Sega, Tubi). Most of these defenses have failed or backfired — Samsung's fee refusal opened federal court instead of closing the case. The plaintiff bar's structural advantage remains intact heading into 2026.

— Brian Beck, Overdeliver Media LLC

Foundation

What Is Mass Arbitration — And Why Is It Reshaping Litigation?

✍ Written by Brian Beck 📅 Last reviewed: March 23, 2026 AI-assisted draft, reviewed and edited by Brian Beck

Mass arbitration is a litigation strategy where a plaintiffs' firm files dozens, hundreds, or thousands of nearly identical individual arbitration demands simultaneously against a single corporate defendant — turning the company's own arbitration clause into a financial weapon.

For decades, corporations inserted mandatory arbitration clauses into consumer and employment contracts to prevent class actions. Mass arbitration flips that logic entirely. Because each claim must be individually administered, companies face enormous, unavoidable filing fees regardless of the merits — creating overwhelming settlement pressure before a single case reaches a hearing.

The strategy gained its critical legal foundation from the Supreme Court's 2018 Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis decision, which upheld class action waivers in arbitration agreements. With the class action door closed, plaintiff-side attorneys innovated a new approach: flood the arbitration system with individual claims en masse.

Today it has evolved into a sophisticated, technology-enabled practice supported by litigation funding, proprietary client intake software, and specialized firms managing hundreds of thousands of simultaneous claimants.

My take: what surprised me most when building this resource was how few plaintiffs' attorneys understood that digital marketing infrastructure — not legal strategy — is what separates a 500-claimant campaign from a 50,000-claimant campaign. The law is only half the equation. — Brian Beck

Pre-2018

Shannon Liss-Riordan pioneers mass arbitration tactics against gig economy employers including Uber and Lyft.

2018

Epic Systems v. Lewis — Supreme Court upholds class action waivers, closing the class action door and accelerating demand for mass arbitration.

2019–2022

Keller Postman files 75,000+ demands against Amazon, forcing Amazon to drop its mandatory arbitration clause. DoorDash, Postmates, and Uber face major campaigns.

2024

AAA and JAMS overhaul their mass arbitration rules. 280,000+ individual claims filed in a single year. Gaming, healthcare, tech, and financial services become primary targets.

2025–2026

Courts sharpen bellwether enforceability rules — 9th Circuit strikes provisions that bind non-participating claimants (Pandolfi v. AviaGames) while upholding JAMS consolidation authority (Jones v. Starz). AAA launches AI arbitrator. BIPA, VPPA, and CIPA privacy statutes fuel the next wave of campaigns.

Key Mechanism

"Mass arbitration enables a plaintiffs' firm to create settlement pressure by leveraging unavoidable arbitration fees borne by a business regardless of the merits — turning the company's own contractual shield into a financial sword."

Top Industries Targeted (2024 AAA Data)

Gaming & Entertainment

Telecommunications

Healthcare

Financial Services

Technology

Source: AAA 2024 Mass Arbitration Infographic →

Process

How Does Mass Arbitration Work? From Filing to Settlement

✍ Written by Brian Beck 📅 Last reviewed: March 23, 2026 Sources: AAA, JAMS, published court decisions

From fee-leverage mechanics to the procedural rules governing AAA and JAMS, here is how a mass arbitration campaign generates settlement pressure at scale. Having worked with plaintiffs' firms on digital campaign infrastructure, step two — mass client intake — is consistently where campaigns win or lose.

Identify Target & Clause

Counsel identifies a defendant whose contracts contain a mandatory arbitration clause with a class action waiver — the essential trigger for the strategy.

Mass Client Intake

Firms use digital advertising and proprietary intake software to recruit thousands of qualifying claimants — often in weeks. Technology is the key differentiator.

Coordinated Filing

Hundreds or thousands of nearly identical demands are filed simultaneously with AAA or JAMS, triggering the forum's mass arbitration rules and flat initiation fee.

Fee Leverage Activates

The defendant faces substantial unavoidable per-case fees regardless of merit. At scale these can reach millions of dollars — pressure to settle mounts immediately.

Resolution

In 2024, 59% of consumer mass arbitrations settled. Only 1% resulted in a formal award. The leverage is in the filing — not the hearing room.

AAA vs. JAMS: Key Differences

Sources: AAA Mass Arbitration Rules · JAMS Mass Arbitration Rules · Swipe to scroll on mobile →

Feature	AAA	JAMS
Claim threshold	25+ similar claims	75+ similar claims
Initiation fee (company)	$8,125 flat	$5,000 minimum
Per-case fee (first 500)	$325/case	Hourly (Process Admin)
Counsel attestation	Required (Rule 11-style)	Sworn declaration required
Global mediation	Mandatory (opt-out available)	Not required
Class arbitration	Covered under rules	Not covered
Process overseer	Process Arbitrator	Process Administrator
Consolidation authority	Process Arbitrator decides	Upheld by 9th Cir. (Jones v. Starz)

The Landscape

Major Players in Mass Arbitration

✍ Researched & written by Brian Beck 📅 Last reviewed: March 23, 2026

The mass arbitration ecosystem spans plaintiff firms that pioneered the strategy, defense firms pushing back, and forums reshaping the rules of the road. What strikes me looking at this landscape: the plaintiff-side arms race is primarily a technology race — whoever builds the better intake machine wins.

Plaintiffs' Firm

Keller Postman LLC

The defining firm of the mass arbitration era. Warren Postman built a tech-enabled mass action infrastructure for client intake and claim coordination at unprecedented scale. Campaigns against Amazon, TurboTax, DoorDash, and Samsung redefined the practice.

Amazon dropped its mandatory arbitration clause after 75,000+ demands filed over Alexa recordings.

Mass Arbitration Practice →

Plaintiffs' Firm $250M+ RECOVERED

Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC

Founded in 1965, Milberg is the most prominent mass arbitration firm by Google search visibility and one of the few with a dedicated Mass Arbitration Practice Group. Led by Senior Partner Gary Klinger and Partner Melissa Nafash, the group has recovered more than $250 million for consumers through ADR. Active in BIPA, CCPA, TCPA, GDPR, consumer fraud, antitrust, and financial services campaigns.

$64.5M — Parris v. Meta Platforms — 4M consumers, 100,000+ demands

$35M — Boone v. Snap, Inc. — 3M consumers, 10,000+ demands

1M+ claimants — Altice USA / Optimum arbitration (active 2025)

Practice leaders: Gary Klinger (Chicago) · Melissa Nafash (New York)

Mass Arbitration Practice →

Plaintiffs' Firm $45B+ OVERALL

Edelson PC

Founded in Chicago by Jay Edelson in 2007, Edelson PC pioneered electronic privacy class action litigation. Named by Law360 as the only plaintiff's firm under 500 attorneys to earn Illinois Powerhouse status. Active in mass arbitration, BIPA, AI harm litigation, and public client enforcement actions.

$650M — Facebook BIPA — largest single-state privacy settlement ever

$925M — ViSalus jury verdict — largest privacy verdict in U.S. history

$76M — TCPA — largest Telephone Consumer Protection Act settlement

Founder: Jay Edelson · Chicago, San Francisco, D.C., L.A., Boulder

Firm Practice Areas →

Plaintiffs' Firm

Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.

Shannon Liss-Riordan is credited as the pioneer of modern mass arbitration, developing the strategy against gig economy employers two decades ago. Major campaigns against Starbucks, FedEx, American Airlines, Uber, and Twitter/X. Forbes Top 200 Lawyers 2024 & 2025.

Campaigns against Twitter/X after Elon Musk layoffs generated hundreds of millions in potential liability.

Shannon Liss-Riordan →

Plaintiffs' Firm

Labaton Keller Sucharow

Active plaintiff-side firm partnering with Keller Postman and Milberg on high-profile campaigns including streaming services Warner, Discovery, and Meta Instagram addiction. Active in consumer protection and securities-adjacent arbitration.

Partnered with Milberg to threaten Meta with mass arbitration — prompting Meta to remove its mandatory arbitration clause entirely.

Labaton.com →

Plaintiffs' Firm

Consovoy McCarthy PLLC

Filed 19,541 concurrent demands against Sega under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, triggering a $39M JAMS invoice and landmark counter-suit. Increasingly active using state privacy statutes as the basis for mass campaigns.

Sega lawsuit against Consovoy & JAMS is a bellwether case for forum liability — Virginia federal case survived motion to dismiss.

ConsovoymcCarthy.com →

Plaintiffs' Firm

Zimmerman Reed LLP

National plaintiffs' firm active in both class actions and mass arbitration. Faced counter-suit from L'Occitane over 3,144 privacy arbitration demands, and named in WarnerMedia's petition over alleged ethical violations in coordinated campaigns.

L'Occitane and WarnerMedia suits against Zimmerman Reed are leading test cases for corporate pushback against plaintiffs' firms.

ZimmReed.com →

Plaintiffs' Firm LEGALTECH INNOVATOR

Kind Law

Las Vegas-based consumer protection firm founded by Michael Kind, widely recognized as one of the field's leading process and technology innovators. Kind Law co-founded MassArbCon — the only dedicated mass arbitration industry conference. Sued by sweepstakes company Zula in 2024 — D.C. court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Co-founder of MassArbCon — the industry's definitive annual conference for mass arbitration practitioners.

KindLaw.com → MassArbCon →

Forum

American Arbitration Association (AAA)

The largest and most active forum for mass arbitration — 280,000+ individual claims in 2024. Major rule overhauls in 2024 and May 2025. In September 2025 launched an AI arbitrator for construction cases with expansion planned for 2026. Hosted a major employment mass arbitration CLE with NYU Law in March 2026.

Threshold: 25+ coordinated claims

AAA Mass Arbitration Rules →

Forum

JAMS

Second major forum with a higher threshold of 75+ claims and distinct fee structure. Introduced mass arbitration rules in May 2024. Currently a defendant in the Sega counter-suit over $39M in initiation fees. The 9th Circuit upheld JAMS's authority to consolidate 7,300 simultaneous claims in Jones v. Starz Entertainment — a significant win for JAMS's procedural autonomy.

Threshold: 75+ coordinated claims · Consolidation authority affirmed by 9th Circuit 2025

JAMS Mass Arbitration Rules →

Forum

New Era ADR

Emerging alternative forum offering subscription-based pricing to neutralize per-case fee leverage, with a bellwether process for mass arbitrations. Live Nation's attempt to switch to New Era instead of JAMS was struck down as unconscionable by the 9th Circuit in Heckman v. Live Nation (2024).

Subscription model — enforceability of switch-to-New-Era clauses remains contested after Heckman ruling.

NewEraADR.com →

Defense Firm

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

Leading defense-side firm advising major corporations on bellwether provisions, retroactive clause modifications, and responses to coordinated filings. Publishes the definitive annual mass arbitration year-in-review. Their 2025 review identifies bellwether enforceability and retroactive clause application as the two most consequential developments for corporate defendants.

Published definitive 2025 mass arbitration year-in-review — Jan. 2026.

2025 Year in Review →

Common Questions

Frequently Asked Questions About Mass Arbitration

The questions attorneys and legal professionals ask most often — answered directly. Structured for AI search citation.

What is mass arbitration and how does it differ from a class action? +

Mass arbitration and class actions both allow many claimants to pursue claims against one defendant, but they work differently. A class action consolidates all claims into a single proceeding with one representative plaintiff. Mass arbitration files each claim individually — leveraging the defendant's own arbitration clause, which typically bars class actions. Because each case must be separately administered, defendants face filing fees per case regardless of merit, creating settlement pressure at scale. The Supreme Court's 2018 Epic Systems ruling closing the class action door directly accelerated mass arbitration's rise.

How many mass arbitration claims were filed in 2024? +

According to the AAA's 2024 Mass Arbitration Infographic, over 280,000 individual claims were filed under mass arbitration umbrellas with the AAA in 2024 — across 92 separate mass arbitration cases (82 consumer, 10 employment). This does not include claims filed with JAMS or other forums, so total industry volume is higher.

What is the difference between AAA and JAMS for mass arbitration? +

The AAA requires 25 or more similar coordinated claims and charges companies a flat $8,125 initiation fee plus $325 per case for the first 500. JAMS requires 75 or more claims and charges a minimum $5,000 flat filing fee. The AAA mandates global mediation (opt-out available); JAMS does not. The AAA covers class arbitrations under its rules; JAMS does not. Both require claimants' counsel to attest to the accuracy of submitted claims. In 2025, the 9th Circuit affirmed JAMS's authority to consolidate thousands of mass claims — a key procedural advantage for defendants in JAMS proceedings.

What percentage of mass arbitration cases settle? +

According to AAA 2024 data, 59% of consumer mass arbitration cases settled, 30% were dismissed, 10% were withdrawn, and only 1% resulted in a formal award. For employment mass arbitrations, 77% settled. The leverage in mass arbitration is the threat of fees — not the hearing room. Most cases never reach the merits stage.

Which industries are most targeted by mass arbitration? +

According to AAA 2024 data, the top industries targeted are gaming and entertainment, telecommunications, healthcare, financial services, and technology. Looking ahead to 2025–2026, companies in sectors covered by biometric privacy (BIPA), video privacy (VPPA), and California wiretapping (CIPA) statutes are increasingly targeted.

How do mass arbitration firms recruit thousands of claimants? +

Leading mass arbitration firms use targeted digital advertising — paid search, social media, and display campaigns — combined with high-converting landing pages and proprietary intake software to recruit qualifying claimants. Keller Postman built a tech-enabled mass action infrastructure specifically for this purpose. Digital marketing and claimant acquisition technology is the primary competitive differentiator between firms today. After the 7th Circuit's 2024 Wallrich v. Samsung ruling, intake documentation quality is now a legal requirement — each claimant must be able to prove their arbitration agreement with the defendant.

Are bellwether provisions in arbitration agreements enforceable? +

It depends on how they are structured. Courts in 2025 established clearer guidelines: bellwether provisions are more likely to be upheld when they (1) resolve claims in concurrent batches rather than indefinitely sequential rounds, (2) toll statute of limitations periods, and (3) do not bind non-participating claimants to outcomes. The 9th Circuit struck down Live Nation's New Era ADR clause (Heckman, 2024) and a provision that bound non-participants (Pandolfi v. AviaGames, Aug. 2025), while upholding JAMS consolidation authority (Jones v. Starz). Courts are actively refining these standards heading into 2026.

Is mass arbitration legal and ethical? +

Mass arbitration is a legally recognized litigation strategy — courts have repeatedly upheld its use. However, it is also contested. Several corporate defendants have sued plaintiffs' firms (e.g., Tubi vs. Keller Postman, Sega vs. Consovoy McCarthy) alleging bad-faith filings. Both AAA and JAMS now require counsel to attest to the accuracy of each claimant's information. Courts are actively developing the law on bellwether provisions, fee structures, and enforceability.

Stay Current

What's Happening in Mass Arbitration Right Now?

Mass arbitration law is moving fast. The most important recent developments shaping the practice in 2025 and 2026. Last updated March 23, 2026

Court Decision New

9th Circuit Upholds JAMS Consolidation of 7,300 Starz Claims — Jones v. Starz Entertainment

When 7,300 claimants filed individual privacy demands against Starz, JAMS consolidated them under its own rules — slashing Starz's potential $12M+ fee exposure. Claimants' counsel opposed and blocked every arbitrator nomination. The 9th Circuit affirmed: consolidation is a procedural matter for the arbitrator, not the court. Distinguishes Heckman — JAMS consolidation is not unconscionable where claimants retain individual hearing rights.

2025 · 9th Circuit · Source: O'Melveny →

Court Decision New

9th Circuit: Bellwether Provisions That Bind Non-Participants Are Unconscionable — Pandolfi v. AviaGames

The Ninth Circuit affirmed that a bellwether provision was unconscionable where test case outcomes were applied as binding precedent to all remaining claimants — including claimants who had no notice, no participation rights, and no opt-out. Courts now draw a clear line: batch processing is permissible; binding non-parties to bellwether outcomes is not. Per O'Melveny, enforceable provisions should avoid indefinite delay and never bind non-participating claimants to bellwether results.

August 2025 · 9th Circuit · Source: O'Melveny →

Year in Review New

2025 Was a Turning Point for Defense Pushback — O'Melveny Year-in-Review

O'Melveny's January 2026 mass arbitration year-in-review identifies five major shifts: (1) courts clarifying enforceable vs. unconscionable bellwether provisions; (2) retroactive mass arbitration clauses upheld under NY and CA law where consumers received notice and consented; (3) SB 707 softened by Hohenshelt; (4) companies suing plaintiffs' firms over allegedly abusive filings; (5) ongoing federal/state court conflicts signaling more appellate guidance ahead.

January 2026 · Source: O'Melveny →

Rule Change

AAA Releases Major Employment & Consumer Rule Revisions, Effective May 1, 2025

Updated procedural changes affect mass arbitration administration, bellwether processes, and fee allocation. Businesses using AAA clauses should review their contracts.

May 2025 · Source: AAA →

Court Decision

California Supreme Court Softens SB 707 Penalties in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court

Late arbitration fee payments may now be excused under general contract principles — reducing automatic penalties that had been a key source of plaintiff leverage in California campaigns.

August 2025 · Source: O'Melveny →

AI & Technology

AAA Launches AI Arbitrator for Construction Cases — More Industries Coming 2026

The AAA launched an AI arbitrator for documents-only construction disputes in September 2025, with plans to expand to additional industries throughout 2026.

September 2025 · Source: AAA →

Landmark Case

Sega v. Consovoy McCarthy & JAMS — The $39M Invoice Dispute

After 19,541 concurrent Unruh Act demands, JAMS invoiced Sega $39 million in initiation fees. Sega sued both JAMS and plaintiffs' counsel. The Virginia case against Consovoy survived a motion to dismiss.

Ongoing 2024–2025 · Source: O'Melveny →

Emerging Trend

Privacy Statutes Drive Next Wave: BIPA, VPPA, and CIPA Campaigns Accelerate

Biometric, video privacy, and California wiretapping claims are fueling the next generation of mass arbitration. Gaming, streaming, healthcare platforms, and ad-tech are primary targets heading into 2026.

2025–2026 Trend · Source: Privacy World →

Data & Statistics

2024 Mass Arbitration by the Numbers — AAA Official Infographic

The AAA's first-ever mass arbitration infographic confirms 280,000+ individual claims across 92 mass arbitrations in 2024. Gaming and entertainment led all sectors with over 100,000 cases. Only 1% of consumer cases closed with an actual award.

April 2025 · Source: AAA →

Transparency

Editorial Policy & AI Disclosure

Who creates this content. All content on MassArbitrationClaims.com is written, reviewed, and maintained by Brian Beck, Founder of Overdeliver Media LLC. Brian works in legal digital marketing with a focus on plaintiffs' firm client acquisition and litigation campaign strategy.

AI disclosure. Portions of this site were drafted with AI writing assistance and subsequently reviewed, fact-checked, rewritten, and approved by Brian Beck before publication. All statistics, case citations, and legal references were independently verified against primary sources including the AAA, JAMS, published court decisions, and major legal news outlets.

Sources & citations. All statistics are sourced from the AAA, JAMS, published federal and state court decisions, and reputable legal publications including Above the Law, Law360, the ABA Business Lawyer, Privacy World, and O'Melveny & Myers annual reviews.

Update policy. This resource is reviewed and updated by Brian Beck on a rolling basis as case law, AAA/JAMS rules, and industry data evolve. Each major section displays its last-reviewed date. If you identify an error or outdated information, please email us directly.

Not legal advice. This site is an educational resource for legal professionals. Nothing here constitutes legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by use of this site.

Commercial disclosure. This site is operated by Overdeliver Media LLC, a digital marketing agency that offers services to plaintiffs' law firms. This commercial relationship does not influence the editorial accuracy of the informational content.

Contact. Questions about this policy: [email protected] · Last updated: March 19, 2026

Mass Arbitration IsReshaping American Litigation

What the 2024 Data Actually Tells Us About Mass Arbitration

What Is Mass Arbitration — And Why Is It Reshaping Litigation?

How Does Mass Arbitration Work? From Filing to Settlement

Identify Target & Clause

Mass Client Intake

Coordinated Filing

Fee Leverage Activates

Resolution

AAA vs. JAMS: Key Differences

Major Players in Mass Arbitration

Keller Postman LLC

Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC

Edelson PC

Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.

Labaton Keller Sucharow

Consovoy McCarthy PLLC

Zimmerman Reed LLP

Kind Law

American Arbitration Association (AAA)

JAMS

New Era ADR

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

Frequently Asked Questions About Mass Arbitration

What's Happening in Mass Arbitration Right Now?

9th Circuit Upholds JAMS Consolidation of 7,300 Starz Claims — Jones v. Starz Entertainment

9th Circuit: Bellwether Provisions That Bind Non-Participants Are Unconscionable — Pandolfi v. AviaGames

2025 Was a Turning Point for Defense Pushback — O'Melveny Year-in-Review

AAA Releases Major Employment & Consumer Rule Revisions, Effective May 1, 2025

California Supreme Court Softens SB 707 Penalties in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court

AAA Launches AI Arbitrator for Construction Cases — More Industries Coming 2026

Sega v. Consovoy McCarthy & JAMS — The $39M Invoice Dispute

Privacy Statutes Drive Next Wave: BIPA, VPPA, and CIPA Campaigns Accelerate

2024 Mass Arbitration by the Numbers — AAA Official Infographic

Who Is Behind This Resource?

From the Blog

What Is an Arbitration Agreement — And How Plaintiffs' Attorneys Are Using Them Against Companies

How Mass Arbitration Works: A Step-by-Step Overview

10 Mass Arbitration Cases That Changed American Law

Ready to Run a Mass Arbitration Campaign?

Build Your Mass Arbitration Digital Marketing Engine

Editorial Policy & AI Disclosure

Mass Arbitration Is
Reshaping American Litigation