Posts

NY Automatic Renewal Law

New York’s Automatic Renewal Law

NY Automatic Renewal Law

New York’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) protects consumers by prohibiting businesses from engaging in certain practices when making an automatic renewal offer in the state. The New York ARL tracks California’s strict statutory requirements, which means that businesses must follow guidelines about disclosing renewal offer terms to consumers, giving customers the opportunity to affirmatively consent before they sign up for an auto-renewal program, and allowing customers to easily cancel their subscription afterwards. NY consumers who have enrolled in a subscription program without their consent should immediately reach out to a qualified New York false advertising attorney who understands both state and federal laws on auto-renewal offers.

To learn more about the New York automatic renewal law, keep reading this blog.

NY Automatic Renewal Bill: SB 1475

New York’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) is set forth in New York State Senate Bill S1475A. The law went into effect in February 2021 after being passed by the New York State Legislature and signed by NY Governor Andrew Cuomo. SB 1475 greatly expanded the scope of the state’s previous automatic renewal law, New York General Obligations Law § 5-903. The new ARL added substantial requirements for businesses that offer either automatic renewal plans or continuous service plans to consumers, including a stricter requirement that businesses notify consumers of the subscription terms after enrollment. Additionally, SB 1475 expanded the old law’s scope beyond service, maintenance, and repair contracts to also include consumer contracts involving “any goods, services, money, or credit for personal, family, or household purposes.”

New York businesses that offer auto-renewal subscription services to consumers must comply with SB 1475, relevant federal laws, and any other state ARLs which may be applicable if the purchase was made online by an out-of-state customer. Additionally, these businesses must also comply with New York’s older ARL, which remains in effect even after the passage of the new law.

New York ARL Requirements for Businesses

The New York ARL imposes the following requirements on businesses that offer consumer contracts for automatically renewing subscription services:

  • Auto-renewal terms must be conspicuous. The auto-renewal terms should be in visual proximity to the section where the consumer provides affirmative consent, and the terms should also stand out visually from the rest of the offer. (E.g., different text sizes, different fonts, and different colors.)
  • Auto-renewal terms must be clear. The terms and conditions of the subscription service must be easy for the consumer to understand. The exact language used by the NY ARL is that the offer terms should be presented “in a manner capable of being retained by the consumer.” (E.g., the offer should clearly state that the subscription will continue until the purchaser cancels.)
  • Must obtain affirmative consent from purchaser. The customer needs to affirmatively consent to the automatic renewal terms before it becomes a legally binding contract. Otherwise, NY law stipulates that any goods received by the consumer are an “unconditional gift” and do not need to be paid for.
  • Must send enrollment acknowledgement to consumer. After the customer has enrolled in the subscription program, the business needs to send a letter, email, or other type of written acknowledgement that states the program’s terms and cancelation policy.
  • Cancelation policy must match method used to subscribe. When a customer uses a company’s website to enroll in a subscription program, the company must allow the customer to cancel online.
  • Free trial offers must have cancelation options. If the company offers a “free” trial period before the subscription automatically renews for a monthly fee, the company needs to provide the consumer with the ability to opt out of the paid subscription service. Additionally, the cancelation policy must be presented clearly and conspicuously in the original agreement.
  • Must disclose any material changes to the agreement. It is common for businesses to modify their agreements later. But if a business wants to change the terms of an auto-renewal plan, they must have already alerted the consumer to this possibility in the original offer. Moreover, when making material changes to its subscription plan, the business must disclose those changes to the consumer and give the consumer an easy way to cancel their subscription.

Defenses Available to Businesses Accused of Violating the NY ARL

Although New York’s ARL provides strong protections to consumers who enroll in auto-renewal plans, there are some exceptions to the law that allow businesses to raise possible defenses against an alleged violation. For instance, the new ARL only applies to contracts for subscriptions involving consumers; business-to-business contract are addressed by the state’s old ARL.

SB 1475 also has a “safe harbor” provision that gives companies a possible defense when the violation was unintentional. If the company can show that they made a bona fide error despite taking reasonable measures to comply with the law, the New York Attorney General may choose not to bring charges.

What Remedies Are Available to Consumers in NY ARL Cases?

Compliance with the New York ARL is enforced by the NY Attorney General. The statute gives the state Attorney General authority to fine businesses as much as $100 for each violation of the auto-renewal law. When the violation was knowing and intentional, the fine can be increased to $500 for each violation. For companies with popular services and large subscription bases, these fines can add up quickly and serve as an effective deterrent against further abuse.

The individual consumers who enrolled in the unlawful subscription services also stand to benefit financially under New York’s auto-renewal law. That’s because the statute specifies that consumers who receive a service or product without providing affirmative consent for enrollment in the subscription program will not have to pay for the goods or services received. Additionally, they may be eligible to join a consumer class action lawsuit brought under one of the state’s consumer protection laws.

Contact the New York False Advertising Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Tauler Smith LLP is a law firm that represents clients in consumer fraud litigation throughout the United States, including New York. Our experienced NY false advertising lawyers have filed complaints on behalf of clients in both federal and state court, and we know how to win these cases. Call or email us to speak with a member of our litigation team.

Macy’s Beauty Box Lawsuit

Macy’s Faces Lawsuit for Beauty Box Automatic Subscription

Macy’s Beauty Box Lawsuit

High-end department store Macy’s faces a lawsuit for its Beauty Box automatic subscription service. The company has been accused of violating consumer protection laws by using deceptive practices to enroll customers in an auto-renewal program for one of its popular beauty product services. Law firm Tauler Smith LLP believes that many people have probably fallen victim to Macy’s allegedly unlawful subscription practices. Since a lot of states like New York, California, and others have strict laws regulating automatic renewals, anyone who purchased the Macy’s Beauty Box from the Macys.com website may be able to file a lawsuit for financial compensation.

Tauler Smith LLP is looking to certify a class of plaintiffs nationwide for a class action lawsuit against Macy’s. If you purchased the Macy’s Beauty Box and were later charged for an ongoing subscription to which you did not consent, you should contact one of our lawyers immediately.

Macy’s Accused of Consumer Fraud

Macy’s Beauty Box is a monthly subscription package of deluxe beauty samples and beauty-related products that has attracted many customers. Unfortunately, the Beauty Box program’s terms and conditions are not always made clear to customers, which has exposed Macy’s to being named as a defendant in lawsuits in California, New York, and other states with strong consumer protection laws. For instance, the automatic renewal terms of Macy’s Beauty Box subscription program may be a violation of both the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and the California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL). Specifically, Macy’s is enrolling customers into an automatic renewal subscription without providing the clear and conspicuous disclosures required by California law.

Some consumers may be unaware that they are being enrolled in an auto-renewal program when purchasing the Macy’s Beauty Box from the store’s website. For example, at least one customer has complained that she did not notice a second charge appearing on her credit card more than one month after her initial purchase. In fact, the entire checkout process on Macys.com appears to be designed to conceal the nature of the automatically renewing subscription and recurring charges. This could make it a clear violation of state consumer fraud laws, including automatic renewal laws.

Does Macy’s Beauty Box Subscription Service Violate Auto-Renewal Laws?

Macy’s, Inc. has been accused of committing numerous violations of automatic renewal laws, including the following:

  • Failure to clearly and conspicuously disclose auto-renewal terms.
  • Failure to disclose when and how often customers will be automatically billed.
  • Failure to inform customers of cancelation policy.
  • Making it difficult for customers to cancel subscription.
  • Failure to send email or other notification to customers after enrollment.

Clear & Conspicuous Disclosure

Macy’s has been accused of failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose its automatic renewal terms to customers who purchase the Macy’s Beauty Box on the store’s website. Although online customers check a box to indicate consent to be enrolled into a monthly subscription service, this box is not clear and conspicuous in the manner required by California’s ARL. For example, Macy’s does not present the auto-renewal offer terms in a larger type font than the surrounding text, nor is the text in the box distinguishable from the surrounding text via contrasting type, font, or color.

One way that Macy’s could have more clearly called attention to the automatic subscription language is by using bold, highlighted, all-capitalized, or different-colored text for the automatic renewal terms. Macy’s also could have employed a “call out” box near the terms so that the subscription enrollment contract was distinct from the product purchase agreement.

Timing of Automatic Charges

Macy’s does not adequately disclose the timing of the automatic charges. For example, the store represents that its customers will be automatically charged “monthly,” but the actual charges to consumers appear to occur in arbitrary intervals. For example, at least one customer was charged on her credit card 49 days after the initial charge.

Cancelation Policy

Macy’s does not adequately disclose how a customer can cancel their subscription. This information could be disclosed either directly on the Macy’s website or in an email sent to the customer after enrollment in the subscription service.

Frustrating Attempts to Cancel Subscription

Macy’s has failed to make it easy for a customer to cancel the subscription. In fact, it appears that Macy’s has intentionally made the cancelation process difficult and frustrating in the hopes that customers will abandon trying to cancel their subscriptions.

Email Acknowledgement After Enrollment

Macy’s fails to send an ARL-compliant retainable acknowledgement consistent with state consumer protection laws. When a customer enrolls in the Beauty Box subscription program, they do not receive an email from Macy’s that accurately explains the terms and conditions of the service. The absence of an email also means that customers are not informed of the policy for canceling the subscription. By failing to provide a permanently retainable post-transaction acknowledgement that allows for cancelation before payment, Macy’s is effectively concealing the nature of the agreement and violating state automatic renewal laws meant to protect consumers.

Macy’s Accused of Violating California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)

In addition to possibly violating state automatic renewal laws, Macy’s has also been accused of violating broader consumer protection laws, such as the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). In California, a violation of the ARL can form the basis for a CLRA claim, as well as a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law. One of the unlawful business practices that Macy’s has been accused of is failing to include a clear and conspicuous explanation of the price that will be charged for its Beauty Box subscription service. Another more general accusation against Macy’s is that the company fails to first obtain affirmative consent from customers before charging their credit and debit cards. All of these practices constitute violations of the ARL, which means that affected consumers may also be able to file lawsuits under the CLRA and other statutes.

Tauler Smith LLP Pursuing Class Action Lawsuit Against Macy’s for ARL Violations

Tauler Smith LLP is a law firm that represents consumers in false advertising claims in California, New York, and nationwide. We suspect that thousands of consumers may have been illegally enrolled in Macy’s Beauty Box subscription program. Our consumer protection lawyers are actively seeking plaintiffs for a possible class action lawsuit against Macy’s. The lawsuit seeks the following remedies on behalf of affected consumers:

  • Full financial restitution to all purchasers throughout the United States of all purchase money obtained from the sales of Macy’s services and products that violate automatic renewal laws.
  • Monetary compensation for any damages suffered by consumers because of Macy’s unlawful business practices.
  • Punitive damages for knowing and egregious violations.
  • An injunction ordering Macy’s to cease and desist from the continued misleading sale and advertisement of its Beauty Box services.
  • A corrective advertising campaign by Macy’s to inform consumers about the true price of any services they purchase, including any automatically renewing charges in connection with those services.
  • Payment by Macy’s of all reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs related to the lawsuit.
  • Additions to the Macy’s website that include a clear and conspicuous explanation of the amount customers will be charged for the Macy’s Beauty Box subscription service.
  • The inclusion of a mechanism for obtaining customers’ affirmative consent before Macy’s charges their credit and debit cards.
  • An email or other post-transaction acknowledgement sent by Macy’s to customers that will allow for cancelation of the subscription service before the first payment.

Did You Purchase the Macy’s Beauty Box? Contact the False Advertising Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Were you enrolled in a monthly subscription service after purchasing the Macy’s Beauty Box, or any other product, from the Macys.com website? The false advertising attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP represent plaintiffs in pre-trial settlement negotiations and at trial, and we have helped countless clients achieve successful outcomes that include restitution and financial compensation. We are looking for plaintiffs nationwide in a possible class action lawsuit against Macy’s.

Call or email us to discuss your eligibility to join the lawsuit.

JAMS Arbitration

Tauler Smith Investigating Claims Against JAMS

JAMS Arbitration

The California business fraud lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP are investigating claims against JAMS after concerns were raised about the arbitration company’s relationship with WeWork. In WeWork arbitrations administered by JAMS, prior case results were known only by JAMS and WeWork. These case results were never shared with WeWork’s opponents, who are mostly small businesses. Neither WeWork nor JAMS would seem to have an interest in sharing information with WeWork’s opponents because doing so could lead to less fees for JAMS. It is wrong for JAMS to operate so obliquely. As an administrator of justice, they need to be held to a higher standard.

To learn more about the claims against JAMS, keep reading this blog.

WeWork Uses JAMS Arbitration Services

JAMS is the world’s largest private provider of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services. As the name suggests, Alternative Dispute Resolution is an alternative to traditional litigation that allows parties to resolve their legal dispute without needing to go to court for a trial. Sometimes, a contract will require two parties to use ADR services, which is what happens in the standard WeWork contract: the small business owners who sign a lease with WeWork have no choice but to use mandatory arbitration if a dispute arises, and the parties are bound by the decision of the JAMS arbitrator. JAMS also sets the rules and procedures for these arbitrations.

JAMS arbitrates cases in several practice areas, including civil rights, class actions, intellectual property, personal injury, product liability, and real estate. One of JAMS’ biggest clients appears to be WeWork, which uses JAMS to administer arbitrations anytime a dispute arises with one of WeWork’s tenants. When a small business owner signs a lease agreement with WeWork, it typically includes a pre-dispute contract that requires the parties to use arbitration if a dispute arises. The effect of these forced arbitration clauses in WeWork contracts is to have the parties waive their right to a jury trial. A WeWork contract typically stipulates that the arbitration will be administered by JAMS, and the decisions rendered by JAMS arbitrators are final and legally binding on the parties.

JAMS Won’t Disclose Data About Arbitrations Involving WeWork

Does JAMS have a conflict of interest in WeWork arbitrations? JAMS touts its ability to resolve legal and business disputes with “impartial” dispute resolution services administered by “neutral” arbitrators and mediators. The former legal professionals who administer JAMS arbitrations are known as “JAMS Neutrals.” As their title indicates, these individuals are supposed to provide fair, unbiased decisions. But there are questions about JAMS’ relationship with its biggest client – WeWork – and this has raised concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the JAMS arbitrators in these cases.

Significantly, JAMS refuses to disclose information that might show they are colluding with WeWork in arbitration. Law firm Tauler Smith LLP recently requested disclosures from JAMS about WeWork and WeWork affiliates. JAMS responded by refusing to provide the requested information because it supposedly “goes beyond legal and ethical disclosure requirements for arbitrators and would violate JAMS confidentiality obligations to other litigants.”

Thus far, JAMS has only provided data about the number of arbitrations with respect to one WeWork company: the one with a listed address of 500 7th Avenue in New Yok. JAMS did not provide any disclosures about the other 36 WeWork entities. Moreover, even the information in the JAMS disclosure about the single WeWork address is limited becuase it simply states that the 500 7th Ave. tenant has 35 pending arbitrations with JAMS and 17 pending mediations. As such, JAMS failed to address the problem identified by the business fraud lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP: that WeWork could have an unfair advantage in any JAMS-administered dispute. If JAMS administers 1,000 cases in which WeWork is one of the parties, and WeWork has won all 1,000 of these cases, why wouldn’t JAMS tell the parties about this?

Why Is JAMS Sharing Relevant Case Information Only with WeWork?

JAMS has refused to share relevant case information with WeWork’s opponents in arbitration due to what JAMS claims is a confidentiality requirement. But JAMS is allowing this information to be shared with WeWork affiliates. This has created an information imbalance that severely disadvantages the small business owners being sued by WeWork. While JAMS declines to provide specific case information to the other parties in these claims, the fact is that WeWork already has access to this information and can share with its affiliates that are involved in other disputes administered by JAMS. This means that only one side of the dispute – and not the other side – can share information with itself, know the outcomes of other cases, and share information with its affiliates. This results in an unfair advantage for WeWork in any arbitration overseen by JAMS.

If WeWork and its affiliates (i.e., WeWork shell entities) account for a significant number of JAMS cases administered in the New York market, it could be evidence of many incentives that are created by JAMS’ administration of WeWork disputes. For example, JAMS would have an incentive to litigate all WeWork cases separately so that only WeWork (and JAMS) has relevant information about outcomes. If WeWork knows that arbitrators are ruling in WeWork’s favor 100% of the time and awarding attorney’s fees every single time based on an identical contract, WeWork’s legal counsel could overbill, constantly brief unnecessary issues, file pre-trial briefs, and file post-trial briefs knowing that these requests will be granted. Further, the small business owner respondents in these cases will not have access to this information because they are not allowed to see it.

Antitrust Concerns Over JAMS’ Relationship with WeWork

JAMS has an effective monopoly over these types of cases. And they may use that privilege unfairly. This could raise concerns about JAMS violating federal antitrust laws like the Sherman Act because WeWork appears to be getting preferential treatment from JAMS. The fact is that WeWork and its affiliates are repeat customers of JAMS, not the small businesses that are typically on the other side of a dispute with WeWork.

The actions taken by JAMS with respect to its relationship with WeWork do not appear to be a fair or reasonable way to administer justice. Any system of justice should treat litigants equally. In the complaint being prepared against JAMS, the California business fraud attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP allege that their clients’ due process rights have been violated because it would be manifestly unjust to collect arbitration fees from thousands of small businesses and force them to go to a hearing to defend themselves when the end result is already known to the other party in advance.

Contact the California Business Fraud Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

If you are a small business owner who has been forced to go into an arbitration administered by JAMS, you should speak with an experienced California business fraud lawyer immediately. The Tauler Smith LLP legal team includes attorneys who have extensive experience with professional negotiation, mediation, and alternative dispute resolution. Call or email us to schedule a free consultation about your case.

WeWork Arbitration

Tauler Smith Investigating Claims Against WeWork

WeWork Arbitration

Law firm Tauler Smith LLP is investigating claims against WeWork and JAMS over misconduct in hundreds of arbitrations initiated by WeWork against small businesses. The unprecedented number of arbitrations (enforcing identical “membership agreements” for “services” despite business closures stemming from COVID-19) generates massive revenue and incentives for JAMS, creating a conflict of interest that is not disclosed to small businesses being pursued by WeWork through JAMS. Neither JAMS nor WeWork discloses to any of these small businesses the nature of the parties’ pecuniary relationship, such as the amount WeWork pays to JAMS every year. Beyond that, neither JAMS nor WeWork discloses prior case outcomes to the small businesses pursued by WeWork, even though WeWork uses identical contracts and identical legal theories in these cases.

Only WeWork and JAMS know case outcomes, but small business opponents defending claims brought by WeWork do not. This places WeWork at a massive advantage since only they have access to certain information, including how JAMS has interpreted the identical contract on multiple occasions. The result is a process that is unfair to small business defendants. It is a process that benefits only WeWork and JAMS by perpetuating WeWork’s ability to pursue its members and by giving JAMS the continued ability to collect fees from hundreds of disputes.

To learn more about the possible legal claims against WeWork and JAMS, keep reading this blog.

WeWork Sued Small Business Owners for Rent During COVID Pandemic

WeWork is a company that provides coworking spaces to businesses. WeWork uses an identical “Membership Agreement,” but not as a lease of space; rather, it is for the provision of services. This allows WeWork to argue that legal protections ordinarily afforded to tenants do not apply to WeWork members. WeWork then argues that landlord-tenant law is applicable to obtain favorable rulings from JAMS.

The attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP are also investigating whether WeWork is reporting the revenue in Membership Agreements accurately to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). WeWork’s accounting procedures have come under public scrutiny over the last several years. The COVID-19 pandemic and the arbitrations WeWork initiated with JAMS potentially provide a means for WeWork to double-book revenue if they apply deceptive accounting methods.

Tauler Smith LLP is also investigating whether WeWork uses private arbitration to protect itself from revealing misconduct that is of concern to the public. Since WeWork structures all of its contracts to be private, only WeWork and JAMS know how and why JAMS has been ruling favorably for WeWork. Moreover, since the cases go through arbitration instead of going through the courts, the small businesses do not know the prior results. This puts the small businesses at an even greater disadvantage in the proceedings. Arbitration is often used for business conflicts that involve contract disputes. WeWork requires anyone who signs a lease with the company to agree in advance to use arbitration for any legal disputes. Even being a part of an arbitration can cost a small businesses significant money. WeWork arbitrations are administered by JAMS, an arbitration company that also provides mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services.

Tauler Smith LLP Investigates Relationship Between WeWork and Arbitration Company JAMS

Tauler Smith LLP is now investigating a possible legal claim against JAMS stemming from the arbitration company’s lucrative and ongoing relationship with WeWork. It has been reported that WeWork may be the largest tenant/landlord in all of New York City, and it is believed that WeWork has pursued hundreds (if not thousands) of claims against its members using only one arbitration company: JAMS. This would mean that JAMS has received millions of dollars from WeWork. JAMS is therefore incentivized to side with WeWork in every case, creating a conflict of interest that is not disclosed. Based on our preliminary investigation, no WeWork member has ever won a JAMS-arbitrated dispute against WeWork. Since WeWork members are never informed of case results – but JAMS and WeWork are privy to this information – WeWork cases submitted to JAMS are inherently unfair.

WeWork uses discrete companies for each of their workplaces to further obfuscate the claims it pursues against its members, as well as the work it gives to JAMS. Tauler Smith LLP has obtained a list of 36 company names and/or addresses for WeWork affiliates that have been involved in arbitrations administered by JAMS:

  • 18691 Jamboree Rd., Irvine, CA 92612
  • 1601 Vine St., Los Angeles, CA 90028
  • 8305 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90069
  • 8687 Melrose Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90069
  • 4041 MacArthur Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92660
  • 600 B St., San Diego, CA 92101
  • 71 Stevenson St., San Francisco, CA 94105
  • 535 Mission St. 14th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
  • 3001 Bishop Dr., San Ramon, CA 94583
  • 255 Giralda Ave. Floor 5, Coral Gables, FL 33134
  • 78 SW 7th St., Miami, FL 33130
  • 765 W. Peachtree St. NW #4, Atlanta, GA 30308
  • 31 St. James Ave. 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02116
  • 200 Portland St., Boston, MA 02114
  • 625 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139
  • 1330 Lagoon Ave., Minneapolis, MN 55408
  • 10845 Griffith Peak Dr. #2, Las Vegas, NV 89135
  • 12 E. 49th St., New York, NY 10017
  • 115 Broadway, New York, NY 10006
  • 185 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016
  • 199 Water St., New York, NY 10038
  • 222 Broadway 19th Floor, New York, NY 10038
  • 300 Park Ave. 12th Floor, New York, NY 10022
  • 401 Park Ave. S. 10th Floor, New York, NY 10016
  • 500 7th Ave., New York, NY 10018
  • 524 Broadway, New York, NY 10012
  • 880 3rd Ave., New York, NY 10022
  • 1115 Broadway, New York, NY 10010
  • 1881 Broadway, New York, NY 10023
  • 1201 3rd Ave., Seattle, WA 98101
  • Bastion Collective LLC
  • We Company
  • WeWork
  • WeWork Companies, Inc.
  • WeWork Companies LLC
  • WeWork Management LLC

How Much Money Does JAMS Make from Its Relationship with WeWork?

JAMS has thus far dismissed any concerns about impartiality or failure to disclose in WeWork cases without providing the data requested. A representative for JAMS stated that the company “administers approximately 15,000 cases per year” and “no single party or law firm significantly impacts JAMS’ total revenue.” The millions of dollars flowing to JAMS from WeWork provides a natural incentive for JAMS to continue ruling favorably for WeWork – which is easy because it is the same “Membership Agreement” being interpreted in each arbitration. Moreover, since JAMS and WeWork refuse to share with small business defendants any relevant information about past rulings, the small businesses remain unaware of the full nature of the WeWork-JAMS relationship. The small businesses will then fight the arbitration and pay JAMS even more fees, only to inevitably lose in front of a JAMS-provided arbitrator. There is no reason for JAMS to be fair because it is not in their financial interests.

JAMS would appear to have an incentive to rule in WeWork’s favor not just because of the many disputes they are currently arbitrating, but also because of all the future business that WeWork will continue to send their way. In other words, JAMS may want to keep WeWork happy because JAMS collects fees on every arbitration, and WeWork sends them a lot of business that generates fees.

Contact the California Business Fraud Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Are you a small business owner who is being pursued by WeWork through JAMS? If so, you may have a possible legal claim against both WeWork and JAMS. WeWork uses JAMS to arbitrate legal disputes, and it is believed that WeWork has never lost a JAMS-administered dispute. You can schedule a free consultation with the California business fraud lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP by calling or sending an email.