Commercial Litigation Update

Mass arbitration has quickly evolved into a major pressure point for companies, with filings surging into the hundreds of thousands each year. In a May 2025 infographic, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) reported receiving 82 consumer mass arbitrations that involved 247,327 individual filings. Only a small percentage of these individual claims—about 10% for consumer cases and 1% for employment cases—advanced through the AAA’s updated mass arbitration process. The top industries where mass arbitrations arose in the year 2024 were gaming and entertainment, telecommunications, healthcare, financial services, and tech. Projections for 2025 are expected to increase as mass arbitrating has become a growing litigation strategy, aimed at overwhelming companies with high volumes of filings. 

On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in United States ex rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. (No. 22-13340) addressing an important procedural question under the False Claims Act (FCA) and other fraud-based statutes: may a plaintiff rely on information learned during discovery to meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard in an amended complaint? The court concluded that the answer is yes.

Rule 9(b) requires that allegations of fraud be plead “with particularity.” Defendants frequently rely on this standard at the motion-to-dismiss stage, aiming to defeat weak FCA complaints before discovery begins. In 2019, an unpublished Eleventh Circuit decision, Bingham v. HCA, Inc., 783 F. App'x 868 (11th Cir. 2019), suggested that plaintiffs could not use discovery to cure a deficient complaint. The concern was that such an approach could incentivize speculative suits filed without adequate factual grounding.

California courts are increasingly handling class action lawsuits alleging that cookies and other web technologies violate privacy laws by collecting personal data without consent. A key issue in these cases is whether California courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state companies operating location-neutral websites.

A recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is raising the stakes for any business that operates a website collecting user data. In Briskin v. Shopify, decided in April 2025, the court held that California courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state company—Shopify—for allegedly collecting personal data from a California resident without proper disclosure or consent. This decision signals a significant shift in how courts view digital jurisdiction in the age of online commerce and widespread data collection.