In Lamps Plus v. Varela, decided by the Supreme Court on April 24, 2019, the five-member majority held that, under the Federal Arbitration Act, courts cannot interpret an arbitration agreement’s ambiguous language to permit either party to bring a class or collective action.  The Court held that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it used a California state contract rule of interpretation to construe ambiguity against the contract’s drafter (Lamps Plus) to find that class or collective actions were permissible.

For additional analysis, see Professor Szalai’s over at Outsourcing Justice.