Opinion ID: 794138
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relevant federal law

Text: 146 On the merits, the decisions of other courts of appeal appear to weigh against Plaintiffs, although not overwhelmingly so. Four of our sister circuits — the Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Eleventh — enforce consumer arbitration clauses barring the use of class mechanisms (class action and/or class arbitration). See Johnson v. West Suburban Bank, 225 F.3d 366, 374 (3d Cir.2000) (Because there is no irreconcilable conflict between arbitration and the goals of the TILA [Truth in Lending Act], we similarly hold that claims arising under the EFTA [Electronic Fund Transfer Act] may also be subject to arbitration notwithstanding the desire of a plaintiff who previously consented to arbitration to bring his or her claims as part of a class.); Snowden v. CheckPoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir.2002) (We also reject [the plaintiff's] argument that the Arbitration Agreement is unenforceable as unconscionable because without the class action vehicle, she will be unable to maintain her legal representation given the small amount of her individual damages.); Livingston, 339 F.3d at 559 ([H]aving found the Arbitration Agreement enforceable we must give full force to its terms.... The Arbitration Agreement at issue here explicitly precludes ... class claims or pursuing `class action arbitration'); Randolph II, 244 F.3d at 819 ([W]e hold that a contractual provision to arbitrate TILA claims is enforceable even if it precludes a plaintiff from utilizing class action procedures in vindicating statutory rights under TILA.). 147 These four decisions have two important commonalities. First, attorney's fees and costs were either recoverable by the plaintiffs who contested the arbitral forum on the basis of the class arbitration ban, or the fees and costs issue was moot. For example, in Johnson, the court stated [n]or will arbitration necessarily choke off the supply of lawyers willing to pursue claims on behalf of debtors. Attorneys' fees are recoverable under the TILA. Johnson, 225 F.3d at 374. In Livingston, the defendant agreed to pay all costs associated with arbitration. Livingston, 339 F.3d at 557. Here, too, because of the general savings clause in the Policies & Practices, we have ruled that attorney's fees and costs must be available in the arbitral forum. 148 Second, in all four decisions, the plaintiffs raised claims against banks or other financial lenders primarily under the TILA. 19 This is not the case here, where we are dealing with federal and state antitrust claims. That is a potentially important distinction. Therefore, we must examine the rationale for these decisions more closely. For this purpose, we will discuss the Third Circuit's Johnson decision. Each of the other circuits relies on Johnson. See Snowden, 290 F.3d at 638-39 (citing Johnson, 225 F.3d at 374); Livingston, 339 F.3d at 559 (citing Johnson, 225 F.3d at 369); Randolph II, 244 F.3d at 818 (Our thinking in this respect is consistent with the Third Circuit's decision that `[arbitration] clauses are effective even though they may render class actions to pursue statutory claims under the TILA... unavailable.') (quoting Johnson, 225 F.3d at 369). In supporting the bar on class arbitration, Johnson also contains the most extensive analysis for that position. See generally Johnson, 225 F.3d at 370-77. 149