Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Data Breach Defense: Mobilizing Against Weaponized Mass Arbitration
Most companies have experienced or will experience a data breach. Increasingly, companies also face the risks associated with mass arbitration weaponized by the overwhelming volume of claims after a breach. This article explores:
- Mass arbitration's emergence as a class action alternative in data breach cases;
- The risks and liabilities associated with mass arbitrations;
- The limited options for mounting an effective response to mass arbitrations;
- The ways companies can minimize their mass arbitration exposure; and
- Mass arbitration settlement strategies in data breach cases.
Prevalence of Arbitration Clauses and the Rise of Mass Arbitrations
Arbitration can provide an effective and efficient means of resolving disputes for all parties involved. The prospect of efficient, out-of-court resolution has prompted many companies to insert a binding arbitration clause in most of their consumer contracts. Following the Supreme Court decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, companies have included consumer-friendly and conscionable arbitration provisions that require the company to pay any arbitration filing fees regardless of which party initiates the arbitration. These arbitrations usually come packaged with class action and jury trial waivers.
The widespread use of consumer arbitration clauses, coupled with the liberal federal policy favoring arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, has drawn the ire of many plaintiffs' attorneys, who are effectively blocked from pursuing many consumer actions or class actions in court. Another subset of the plaintiffs' bar, however, has sought to leverage these arbitration clauses into quick settlements. Enter the mass arbitration.
The typical mass arbitration scheme involves the threat of thousands upon thousands of putative claimants who are ready to file individual claims against a company en masse. This fleet of claimants is typically represented by one firm that solicited them through online advertising or targeted outreach. The firm then approaches the company with an ultimatum: Enter into a global settlement now or face the cost of defending against thousands of claims and their attendant fees in arbitration.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?