by Jeff Sovern
Gregory Gauthier has pointed out that Starbucks has changed its arbitration clause and wonders why. The old version is described here. The new version is somewhat less onerous. For example, it permits the arbitration to be "held in a reasonably convenient location in the state in which you reside or at another mutually agreed location," while the old version required the arbitration to take place in Seattle unless otherwise agreed. If you have a thought as to this or other changes, please comment below.
I think the principal change is the 30-day opt out feature. Citibank made a similar change for at least some of its cards. My belief is that it is in reaction to the Supreme Court’s WELLNESS NETWORK INT’L v. SHARIF decision last May, which held that a waiver of the right to appear in an Article III court has to be knowing and voluntary, and must include knowledge of the right to refuse to waive the Article III forum.