Using an Arbitration Clause to Protect Against Class Action Risk
Petty v Niantic Inc., 2022 BCSC 1077 is an example of how organizations may protect against class action risk through an arbitration clause in a standard form agreement, following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Uber Technologies v Heller, 2020 SCC 16. In Heller, the Court refused to stay a proposed class proceeding in favour of binding arbitration. The majority ruled that the arbitration clause in Uber’s standard form services agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. An analysis of Heller can be found here.
Niantic provides guidance on drafting enforceable arbitration clauses in standard form contracts and protecting an organization against class action risk post-Heller. For a detailed analysis of Niantic, see the post from our arbitration group: Pokémon Go Catches a Win in Enforcing Arbitration Clause.