McGill Lives.
California's McGill case, about which we have posted before1, holds a predispute arbitration provision waiving a plaintiff’s right to seek public injunctive relief is “contrary to California public policy and is thus unenforceable under California law.” The McGill holding is enforced again in Ramsey v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, H049949 (6th Dist. pub. 1/29/24) (Greenwood, Grover, Lie).
Charles Ramsey sued Comcast Cable Communications alleging various violations of consumer protections. He alleged that Comcast misleads the public with information about its promotional prices. Apparently Ramsey was able to contact Comcast yearly when his service contract was about to expire, and renegotiate the contract, getting pretty much the same promotional deal. The art of the deal!
Anyway, Comcast petitioned unsuccessfully to compel arbitration. Ramsey argued that he sought public injunctive relief, and could not be bound to a predispute arbitration agreement requiring a waiver of such relief. Comcast argued that the injunctive relief Ramsey requested would only benefit a discrete group of existing subscribers rather than the public. The trial court disagreed with Comcast and so did the Court of Appeal.
The opinion explains that the relief requested by Ramsey could benefit potential subscribers to the service if it meant that they would receive more accurate information. And: "An injunction that benefits both subscribers and potential subscribers is a public injunction."
1 We have a sidebar category for Arbitration: Public Injunctive Relief. You can click on the link to find other cases mentioning McGill.
Comments