California Supreme Court

We’ve previously blogged about Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court (“BMS”), in which the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a decision of the California Supreme Court that adopted an unusual—and extraordinarily expansive—view of California courts’ power to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

We filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the California Chamber of Commerce, the American Tort Reform Association, and the Civil Justice Association of California, arguing that the California court’s holding conflicted with numerous Supreme Court decisions making clear that in order to invoke specific jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise out of the defendant’s in-state conduct.  (The views in this post are ours, and not those of our clients.)

The case was argued in April, and the Court announced its decision today. The result is an 8-1 opinion rejecting the California Supreme Court’s approach and, in our view, recognizing important limits imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause on the ability of courts to adjudicate cases that aggregate the claims of plaintiffs from many jurisdictions.

The immediate impact of the decision is to limit the forums where nationwide mass actions in state court can proceed to those states in which the defendant is subject to general jurisdiction (usually the state of incorporation and principal place of business).  In addition, as we discuss below, the decision raises substantial questions about whether nationwide class actions can proceed in jurisdictions where a defendant is not subject to general jurisdiction. Continue Reading Supreme Court’s Decision In Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court Rejects Expansive View Of Specific Jurisdiction

Every first-year law student learns that one of the first questions a defendant must ask is whether the court in which a lawsuit is filed has personal jurisdiction—that is, whether the state or federal court can exercise power over the defendant. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the reach of that power, preventing a court from exercising jurisdiction over a defendant that has no ties to the State in which the court sits.

Applying this limitation, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized two kinds of personal jurisdiction: general and specific. General jurisdiction permits courts to adjudicate claims against a defendant arising out of actions occurring anywhere in the world (subject, of course, to any limits specific to a particular cause of action). It requires that the defendant be considered “at home” in the forum.

Specific jurisdiction, by contrast, empowers a court to adjudicate particular claims relating to a defendant’s conduct within the forum. To be subject to specific jurisdiction, the defendant must have established contacts with the forum, and the lawsuit must arise out of those contacts.

Both of these forms of personal jurisdiction have been examined by the Supreme Court in recent years, but the lower courts remain in disarray over how to apply the Court’s precedents. Likely for that reason, the Court has recently agreed to review two cases addressing both facets of personal jurisdiction.

First, the Court granted certiorari in BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, in which (in our view) the Montana courts failed to honor Supreme Court precedent establishing limits on general jurisdiction. Second, the Court granted review in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, in which the California courts similarly flouted the limits on specific jurisdiction by allowing out-of-state plaintiffs to sue in California for claims that have nothing to do with the state. Defendants who face class and mass actions should follow both cases closely, and both will be important barometers for whether the Court is committed to maintaining strict limits on the scope of personal jurisdiction. (We filed an amicus brief (pdf) for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Bristol-Myers Squibb explaining the disarray in the lower courts and why that case in particular warranted Supreme Court review.)

Continue Reading Supreme Court Will Review Two Important Cases Regarding Scope Of Personal Jurisdiction

What’s the difference between claiming that a food product is improperly certified as organic and claiming that the producer was properly certified but the product isn’t really organic? A unanimous California Supreme Court held in Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. (pdf) that state courts and juries should figure out the answer.  That ruling opens the door to state-law actions that challenge food producers’ compliance with the federal organic food product certification and labeling scheme, so long as the claims don’t take issue with the original certification decision.  The decision revived a consumer class action alleging that a food producer—though properly certified to use the “organic” label—intentionally misapplied that label to products containing conventionally produced herbs from one of its noncertified facilities.

Drawing an exquisitely fine line, the California Supreme Court held that preemption extends only to “matters related to certifying production as organic” and left “untouched enforcement against abuse of the label ‘organic.’”  The court concluded that state lawsuits alleging intentional misuse of an organic label were not preempted because (in the California court’s view) lawsuits of that kind would help rather than hinder Congress’s objective.

The federal Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) creates a uniform, federal definition of the term “organic” and gives the U.S. Department of Agriculture exclusive authority to elucidate the labeling standard and to certify producers as qualifying to label food as “organic.”  The USDA may approve a state agency to carry out the certification function and impose more stringent state substantive standards. The California Department of Food and Agriculture has been approved for both of these roles. The OFPA and its California counterpart both provide for administrative enforcement of the regulations, including processes for consumer complaints to the relevant agency.

In Quesada, the plaintiff sued Herb Thyme Farms under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), alleging that Herb Thyme applied a “Fresh Organic” label to conventionally produced herbs and to a mixture of organic and conventional herbs.  Herb Thyme has an organic farm that has been certified to use the “organic” label, but also operates conventional, nonorganic farms.

The California Supreme Court held that the federal OFPA did not preempt Quesada’s state-law claims.  First, the court held that, because the pertinent provisions of OFPA do not reference enforcement, the statute expressly preempts state law only as to the definition of “organic” and the process for certifying that a grower’s methods of production entitle it to use the “organic” label.  The California court relied on the fact that the mislabeling claims did not address the certification or compliance of Herb Thyme’s organic facility, but only challenged the use of the “organic” label for Herb Thyme products that contained (or consisted solely of) herbs that were not produced at the certified farm.  The federal certification standards also address the procedures to be followed where a producer has both organic and conventional facilities, but the California Supreme Court found that regulation insufficient to bring the case within the OFPA’s preemptive scope.

Second, the California court concluded that Quesada’s claims were not impliedly preempted because they did not pose an obstacle to the uniform federal regulatory scheme, but rather furthered the purpose of that scheme. In the court’s view, once the regulators decide whether a producer or product meets the standards in the first instance, private plaintiffs may enlist state-law theories to enforce the producer’s later compliance with the labeling requirements. According to the court, allowing plaintiffs to use state statutory and common law to enforce the OFPA would “affirmatively further the purposes of the Act”—the more enforcement, the merrier.

By allowing a private plaintiff to pursue a state-law misrepresentation theory to police compliance with OFPA labeling standards, Quesada conflicts with the Eighth Circuit’s decision in  In re Aurora Dairy Corp. Organic Milk Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation.  The Eighth Circuit held in Aurora Dairy that claims alleging that “milk [was sold] as organic when in fact it was not organic are preempted because they conflict with the OFPA.” As the court of appeals put it, “compliance and certification cannot be separate requirements.” While the plaintiffs in Aurora Dairy could not sue over the use of the “organic” label, they could challenge related assertions and omissions about the way the cows were raised and fed, including affirmative claims that the cows were antibiotic- and hormone-free.

The California Supreme Court tried to avoid the conflict by asserting that the plaintiffs in Aurora Dairy were challenging the certification process itself.  But that is not what the Aurora court said; moreover, the claims it allowed were based on representations that did not use the word “organic.”

Although the Quesada decision is limited on its face to claims involving fraudulent or intentional substitution of uncertified products for certified ones, that restriction may provide only modest comfort to defendants. Plaintiffs’ counsel can manipulate the allegations in their complaints with relative ease, particularly under the elastic standards of the UCL and CLRA.  And the California Supreme Court opinion reflects hostility to federal preemption, suggesting that state lawsuits serve the purposes of an otherwise uniform federal regulatory scheme merely by increasing the volume of litigation, and that the so-called presumption against preemption may be dispositive even in an area like food safety, where the  federal government has been heavily involved for more than 100 years. .

The California Supreme Court has a reputation for hostility to arbitration, especially in the consumers and employment context. Much of the arbitration docket of the United States Supreme Court over the past 30 years has involved reversals of California Supreme Court decisions refusing to enforce arbitration agreements, most recently (and perhaps most notably) in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (in which the authors were counsel). Even when seemingly compelled to enforce an arbitration provision in the face of recent U.S. Supreme Court authority, the California court has often found a way to carve out some exception to arbitration in the particular case or to offer suggestions to plaintiffs seeking to avoid arbitration in a future case. A prime example is the 2014 decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation, which exempted from arbitration all wage-and-hour civil-penalty claims under the Private Attorney General Act.

The decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. (pdf) represents a welcome break from this pattern, upholding an arbitration agreement against an array of unconscionability challenges without finding it necessary to sever even a single clause to render the agreement enforceable. Although every point decided in Sanchez is consistent with recent U.S. Supreme Court authority applying the Federal Arbitration Act, however, the opinion’s emphasis on the specific factual setting may seed further efforts to evade arbitration agreements . As so often is the case, the devil is often in the details.

Continue Reading Man Bites Dog: California Supreme Court unanimously rejects unconscionability challenge to consumer arbitration provision

Today is Halloween, an occasion when our thoughts turn to jack o’lanterns, ghosts, and zombies.  We are particularly fascinated by zombies—the dead returned to life. But we’re not the only ones.  In a decision earlier this week, a majority of the National Labor Relations Board voted to reanimate the dead.

The Board’s zombie of choice?  Its decision nearly three years ago in D.R. Horton (pdf), in which the Board sought to push back on arbitration agreements that require individual arbitration rather than class or collective actions.  As our readers know by now, most courts have accepted the Supreme Court’s clear and emphatic message that the Federal Arbitration Act protects the right of contracting parties to agree to resolve any disputes through arbitration on an individual basis.  But the NLRB, which hears complaints alleging unfair labor practices, came to a different conclusion in D.R. Horton, concluding that individual arbitration interferes with the right of employees to engage in “concerted activities” under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act— and that its interpretation of the NLRA trumps the FAA.  Yet, for reasons we—along with many other critics—have discussed, that approach gets it exactly backward.  The Supreme Court has held that the FAA takes precedence in the absence of a contrary congressional command.  Nothing in the NLRA itself (as opposed to the Board’s own policy views) evinces a clear congressional command to override the FAA.  And the Board itself cannot override a congressional enactment like the FAA.

For these reasons, the Board’s D.R. Horton ruling has been rejected by almost every court to consider it: by the Fifth Circuit (on direct review), by the Second Circuit, by the Eighth Circuit, by more than a dozen federal district courts, and— most recently— by the California Supreme Court.

But the Board, rather than acquiescing in the face of this avalanche of judicial authority, has sought to resurrect it.  Earlier this week, by a 3–2 vote, the Board issued its decision in Murphy Oil USA (pdf), reaffirming D.R. Horton and rejecting the views of the courts.  The Board dismissed most of the contrary authority in cavalier fashion—disparaging the Second and Eighth Circuit’s decisions for their “abbreviated” analysis, and refusing to engage with the California Supreme Court’s decision or any federal district court decision because those courts don’t typically exercise direct review over Board decisions.

As for the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the Board complained that the court gave “too little weight to [Board] policy” and that “[t]he costs to Federal labor policy imposed by the Fifth Circuit’s decision would be very high.”  But this assessment simply underscores the error in the Board’s ways:  An agency’s general policy views, no matter how strongly felt, cannot override the powerful congressional mandate favoring the enforcement of arbitration agreements that is embodied in the FAA.  And even though the Board has authority to set policy under the NLRA, the Board’s view of what the FAA requires is not entitled to any weight at all, because Congress has never given the agency authority to interpret or administer that statute.

In response to the Fifth Circuit’s legal analysis, the Board did little more in Murphy Oil than repeat its view— resting on nothing more than the Board’s say so in D.R. Horton— that the right to engage in “concerted activities” under Section 7 includes an unwaivable substantive right to class-action procedures.  But nothing in the text of the NLRA commands or even suggests that result.  Although the Board purported to find an “inherent conflict” between the NLRA and the FAA, the purported conflict in fact arises only from the Board’s questionable interpretation of the NLRA, not from anything inherent in the statute itself.  At bottom, the Board’s position rests on its own view of federal labor policy, not any congressional command, and an agency’s views cannot override what Congress enacted in the FAA.  (Moreover, as the Fifth Circuit pointed out, the agency’s insistence that the purported right to class-action procedures is a nonwaivable substantive right under the NLRA is questionable even on its own terms.)

The Board’s decision will not be the last word on this matter.  As in D.R. Horton, this latest decision is subject to direct review by a federal court of appeals, which will be free to reject the Board’s position and deny enforcement of its order.  Given the weight of judicial authority rejecting D.R. Horton and the Board’s failure to respond to that authority in a convincing manner, the Board’s position will likely continue to be met with skepticism in the courts.  For now, however, employers that use arbitration agreements with their employees may face possible challenges from the Board or from employees seeking to pursue class or collective actions.  In short, the D.R. Horton zombie will continue to stalk the land for the immediate future.

Suppose that you’re a trial court considering a motion for class certification.  And suppose that the parties present you with two competing statutory interpretations.  One legal standard permits the case to be adjudicated with common evidence.  And the other standard would require  individualized inquiries.  What should you do?  Should you decide what the law is and then see whether the putative class claims can be tried in a single trial?

The surprising answer of the California Court of Appeal is in Hall v. Rite Aid Corp. (pdf) is “No.”  Hall appears to conclude that commonality and predominance need not be established under the correct substantive legal standards.  Rather, if the plaintiffs propose a legal standard dispensing with individualized inquiries, the very question whether that standard applies is a common issue supporting class certification.

Hall is another decision in a growing series of “suitable seating” cases addressing a California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order that requires employers to provide employees with “suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.” The plaintiffs in Hall—cashier-clerks who divided their time between check-out counters, stockrooms, and sales floors—construed the Order to require seats to be provided to every employee for every task where providing seats would be reasonable. In particular, the plaintiffs contended that Rite Aid had a duty to provide a seat to any employee who worked at a check-out counter for any period of time, even if for much of that time the employee would not be able to perform the job while sitting.  Rite Aid, in contrast, contended that the duty to provide a seat depended on the employee’s duties as a whole, so that the Order would not require providing a seat to an employee working at a check-out counter if the employee worked mostly at tasks where seating was inappropriate, or if check-out duties would not allow the employee to sit most of the time.  Thus, under plaintiffs’ legal theory, any failure to have a seat at a check-out counter was a violation requiring no further inquiry, while under Rite Aid’s theory such a failure would violate an employee’s rights only under certain, largely individualized circumstances.

Agreeing with Rite Aid’s view of the substantive law, the trial court decertified a class.  The San Diego-based Court of Appeal reversed.  In its view, the disputed legal elements of the plaintiffs’ claim were themselves common legal issues supporting class certification.  According to that court, deciding exactly what the law required the plaintiff had to prove in common was an impermissible predetermination of the action’s merits, and thus fell afoul of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court.

True, Brinker had disapproved a “free-floating inquiry into the validity of the complaint’s allegations” at the class certification stage.  Yet the California Supreme Court also recognized that when “legal issues germane to the certification inquiry bear as well on aspects of the merits, a court may properly evaluate them”; indeed, [t]o the extent the propriety of certification depends on disputed threshold factual or legal questions, a court may, and indeed must, resolve them.”

It seems to me that, when one interpretation of a Wage Order would require resolution of myriad individualized issues, and the other interpretation would permit the same issues to be resolved in common, the “propriety of certification” under Brinker would depend on the correct legal standard.  Not so, according to the Hall court, which viewed the very dispute over the legal standard as a common issue supporting class certification.

The Hall opinion would seem to allow a plaintiff to obtain class certification simply by advancing a theory of liability that omits inherently individualized elements such as causation and injury, on the ground that the validity of the plainly erroneous legal theory could be determined on a class-wide basis.  And the Hall approach raises significant unanswered questions.  The opinion suggests that defendants—especially employers whose policies are challenged—should want threshold legal questions to be decided after class certification so that the entire class is bound by the result.  But if class counsel is wrong about the legal theory, and in fact the legality of the employer’s policy depends on individual circumstances, does the entire class lose because the class plaintiff’s overbroad theory fails, even though some or even many class members would have valid claims under the proper, more individualized standard?  That might create adequacy and due process problems, elevating the interests of the class-action lawyers over those of their clients.  But if determination of the legal issue on a class basis instead simply results in decertification of the class, allowing new actions under the correct theory, then it makes no sense to defer the decision as to what, exactly, plaintiffs must prove through common evidence.

The issue surfaced indirectly in the California Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision in Duran v. US Bank NA (pdf), which we recently discussed.  Duran rejected the use of questionable statistical sampling that swept away individualized issues and defenses in a wage-and-hour class action.  The Court’s evaluation of the class-certification and trial-management issues hinged on a view of the governing law under which an employee’s exempt status under the overtime laws hinged on whether the employee actually spent more than half-time carrying out duties that were exempt (there, sales outside the employer’s facility).  Justice Liu’s concurring opinion suggested a possible legal test—different from the Court’s view—that would turn on the employer’s reasonable expectations about the balance of exempt or nonexempt activity within a particular job classification, not on the employees’ actual work practices. If that test correctly stated the obligation, Justice Liu suggested, the application of the exemption could be determined as a common issue without the need for statistical sampling. Hall raises the troubling possibility that a litigant could seek to avoid individualized issues by restating the governing legal test along the lines of Justice Liu’s concurrence in Duran, and then claim that the choice between Justice Liu’s formulation and the formulation adopted in the Court’s opinion itself was a common issue of law.   In my view, such an approach would be inconsistent with Duran and Brinker.

 

In Duran v. U.S. Bank N.A. (pdf), the California Supreme Court recently addressed an important question in the context of state-court class actions: Can plaintiffs invoke statistical sampling in an attempt to prove class-wide liability and overcome the presence of individual questions that ordinarily would defeat class certification?

The court’s answer to that question is a mixed bag for business. The court firmly rejected the haphazard approach to sampling used by the trial court in the lawsuit against U.S. Bank. But the court left open the troubling possibility that sampling might be used in support of class certification in the future. Continue Reading California Supreme Court Rejects Exceptionally Poor Sampling Method, But Leaves Open Many Questions About Sampling And Class Certification

Since 2006, companies based outside California have been alert to the potential burdens of class actions under California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code § 630 et seq. The laws of most states, as well as federal law, allow telephone calls to be recorded with the consent of one party to the call. Accordingly, companies in those states usually can record customer service calls for quality-assurance purposes without the need to procure the customer’s consent because the call-center employee, as a party to the call, can consent to the recording. California, however, is one of 12 states that allow recording only if all parties to the call consent. (The other so-called “two-party consent” states are Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington.) The plaintiffs’ bar has been trying to use California’s extremely pro-plaintiff privacy laws, such as the CIPA, to turn this innocuous business practice into an opportunity to extract class-action settlements from companies.

In 2006, the California Supreme Court held that CIPA applies even when one party to the conversation is outside California in a state that authorizes recording with the consent of a single party to the call. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006). The court explained that, under California’s choice-of-law rules, California had the overriding interest in applying its privacy laws, such as CIPA, whenever “national or international firms” headquartered outside of California record “conversations with their California clients or customers.” And, like Flanagan v. Flanagan, 27 Cal. 4th 766 (2002), Kearney applied CIPA regardless of the content of the conversations, though that likely was because Kearney involved calls to a financial institution and Flanagan involved calls between family members—i.e., situations where callers arguably have an expectation of privacy. Nonetheless, an onslaught of consumer class actions followed and continue to this day.

Companies facing CIPA suits have been making progress. More and more courts are recognizing that CIPA was not intended to apply to calls to customer-service centers. See Shin v. Digi-Key Corp., 2012 WL 5503847 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2012); Sajfr v. BBG Commc’ns, Inc., 2012 WL 398991 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2012). They’ve also recognized that customer-service calls usually do not involve private information. See Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 706 F.3d 1017, 1020 (9th Cir. 2013); Shin; Safjr. And they’ve found that individualized issues of privacy and consent under CIPA preclude class certification. See Torres v. Nutrisystem, Inc., 289 F.R.D. 587 (C.D. Cal. 2013).

The recent decision in Jonczyk v. First National Capital Corp., No. 13-cv-959-JLS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014), provides another arrow in companies’ quivers—and a large one at that. In that case, First National and its employee were located in California and the plaintiff called in from her home in Missouri. The district court applied a conflict-of-law analysis and concluded that the law of Missouri (a one-party consent state) should apply, not California’s CIPA. The court distinguished Kearney, which involved Salomon Smith Barney’s California clients, and held that California had little interest in a Missouri resident’s claims, while Missouri had valid interests in limiting the reach of its wiretapping statute. In so holding, the court cited our victory in Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) for the proposition that “maximizing consumer and business welfare … does not inexorably favor greater consumer protection.” The district court’s extension of Mazza to the privacy context, and CIPA specifically, represents a significant step forward for companies doing business in California. The decision should be particularly helpful to companies in California who receive out-of-state customer calls that are recorded.

The California Supreme Court has a long history of inventing new rules—either from common law or as “glosses” on statutes—to invalidate arbitration agreements entered into by consumers and employees. For example, in 2005, that court announced a new unconscionability rule—the“Discover Bank” doctrine, which was named after one of the parties to the case—that effectively blocked enforcement of every consumer arbitration agreement that did not permit class procedures. The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempted the Discover Bank rule.

Will the California Supreme Court faithfully apply Concepcion and the U.S. Supreme Court’s other recent rulings overturning lower courts’ refusals to enforce arbitration agreements? Or will it try to formulate new grounds for prohibiting arbitration, requiring the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene yet again to vindicate the Federal Arbitration Act’s “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, notwithstanding any state substantive or procedural policies to the contrary.” With four significant arbitration cases now pending before the California Supreme Court, we are likely to find out in the next 12 to 24 months.

The first of these decisions, handed down on October 17 in Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (pdf)—in which our firm filed an amicus brief (pdf)—contains a distinctly mixed message. In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s order granting certiorari and vacating and remanding the case in light of Concepcion, the California Court overturned its own prior ruling invalidating the arbitration agreement, correctly holding that its original rationale could not stand. In an opinion by Justice Liu, the Court went on to discuss—although not explicitly mandate—a brand-new approach to unconscionability analysis that reintroduces the precise legal principle that the U.S. Supreme Court held preempted in Concepcion and rejected again this year in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant. And it does so through an unconscionability standard specially constructed to apply only to arbitration contracts, notwithstanding the FAA’s express preemption of arbitration-specific contract enforcement standards.

Did the California Supreme Court, finding its prior decision clearly precluded by Concepcion, decide to create a new basis for refusing to enforce arbitration agreements that is different in appearance but the same in effect as its now-invalid ruling? The court’s musing about unconscionability doctrine is not tethered to any holding, because the court specifically leaves the question of unconscionability for determination on remand. And the court repeatedly says that its new analysis is simply “one factor” that could be considered in the unconscionability inquiry.

Even more important, the majority’s musing does not actually require a lower court to do anything in any particular case. As Justice Corrigan, who joined the majority, explained in her concurring opinion, the decision “does not require trial courts to adopt a new procedure or analytic approach”; rather “[c]onsiderations outlined in the majority’s opinion may be relevant to [unconscionability] analysis, but lower courts retain discretion to weigh these considerations as appropriate in each particular case.” That qualification is important, because if a California court were to apply this new test to invalidate an arbitration agreement, that ruling plainly would be subject to reversal on the ground that such state-law rulings are preempted on multiple grounds by the FAA.

Companies defending arbitration clauses in California now must be prepared to explain why, as a matter of California law, courts should not—indeed, must not—rest an unconscionability finding on this new analysis, as well as why a refusal to enforce an arbitration agreement based on the California Supreme Court’s new rationale would violate the FAA. If the California courts do not heed those warnings, the state’s law of unconscionability is on track for a return trip to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We discuss the Sonic decision in much greater depth here.

Over the past two years, a big growth area for plaintiffs’ lawyers has been cases challenging the use of zip codes or other identifying information by merchants that process credit-card transactions.

In 2011, the California Supreme Court held in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores that a zip code constitutes “personal identification information” under California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, thus potentially exposing retailers to civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation if they request and record the zip codes of customers paying by credit card. (My colleagues John Nadolenco and Archis Parasharami did a teleconference about Pineda that you can listen to here.) Sensing blood in the water, the plaintiffs’ bar filed a wave of class actions against brick-and-mortar and online retailers.

Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court narrowed the scope of its ruling to exclude online retailers selling downloadable products. Because the court left undecided whether other online or non-face-to-face transactions are actionable, numerous California class actions against online retailers and catalog merchants remain pending. (In my view, these cases also should be dismissed; these vendors have no opportunity to inspect customers’ credit cards or identification physically, and need the customer’s address to ship the goods.)

Similar cases are being filed in other states. In March, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that zip codes are “personal identification information” for purposes of Massachusetts’ equivalent to the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, G.L. c. 93, § 105(a). See Tyler v. Michaels Stores Inc., No. SJC-11145 (Mass. Mar. 11, 2013). As in California, a number of new class actions under the Massachusetts law have been filed in the wake of Tyler.

But where will these lawsuits show up next? Nine other jurisdictions have privacy laws similar to California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act and the Massachusetts law: Delaware (Del. Code tit. 11, § 914), the District of Columbia (D.C. Code § 47-3153), Kansas (Kan. Stat. § 50-669a), Maryland (Md. Code Com. Law § 13-317), Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 325F.982), New Jersey (N.J. Stat. § 56:11-17), New York (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 520-A(3)), Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13-16), and Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. § 423.401).

Hopefully, courts in those jurisdictions will reject the broad interpretation of “personal identification information” that the California and Massachusetts high courts adopted; retailers have strong arguments that legislatures did not intend to subject businesses to liability for obtaining ZIP code information—especially because such information often is publicly available and does not raise the same kinds of privacy concerns as, say, social security numbers might.

That said, retailers should watch these jurisdictions carefully, review what data they collect from credit-card customers, and assess what is being done with that data. The wave of zip-code class actions may still be building.