In an opinion today, Judge Oetken ruled that Sprint was collaterally estopped from revisiting an arbitration ruling in Kansas concluding that, under Kansas’s Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act (“KCPA”), a customer named Vincent Emilio was allowed to bring his claims against Sprint as a class action. In the underlying dispute, Emilio alleges it was unlawful for Sprint to pass along to its customers a fee to cover a New York state tax. Sprint argued that its agreements with customers bar class actions, and that, while the KCPA prohibits these types of class waivers, the KCPA was applicable only to conduct “within this state” (i.e., Kansas), not to issues relating to a New York tax. Judge Oetken ruled, however, that Sprint bargained for the arbitrator to make this decision, and already lost on the point:
Continue Reading Judge Oetken: Sprint Can’t Re-litigate Arbitral Ruling Allowing Customer Class Action