University of Miami Law Review


The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) was enacted in 1925 to combat judicial hostility towards arbitration. Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this statute as evidencing a pro-arbitration policy and has upheld the use of arbitration clauses in a variety of contracts. Unfortunately, while the FAA was able to overcome the hostility towards arbitration, it was not able to stop the Court from finding a new target: class arbitrations.

This Comment analyzes the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela. In critiquing the Court’s continued erosion of the availability of class arbitrations, this Comment considers the negative effects of the pro-business decision on employees and consumers who are subject to arbitration clauses. This Comment concludes that congressional action is needed to reverse the years of flawed class arbitration jurisprudence.