Back in February, Gregory Gauthier wondered why Starbucks changed its arbitration clause. Now, he writes:
I was looking through the Q2 2016 Consumer Arbitration Statistics for the American Arbitration Association, and I found a case filed against Starbucks on January 18, 2016 (case #011600001646, row 5053). The Colorado pro se consumer in that case brought an $825 claim. Steve A. Miller (apparently based in Denver so the forum selection clause must not have been enforced) was appointed as arbitrator on April 25. The case settled June 28 (which explains its appearance in the Q2 data).
So I think I've solved the mystery. Starbucks must have been asked by the AAA to waive the offending provisions. Instead of waiving them and having the waiver posted on the Consumer Clause Registry, Starbucks instead decided to amend the entire clause. (The amended clause was listed March 28.) So it appears safe to say that the Consumer Clause Registry directly caused the beneficial change to the arbitration terms. (To be sure, there are still shortcomings with the registry, which is why I plan to propose that the CFPB start its own registry and review of financial services arbitration clauses.)
