Supreme Court of the United States In dissent, Justice Kagan said the majority hadnullified a “plain-vanilla rule of contract interpretation” that inCalifornia and other states requires an ambiguous agreement be readto favor the side that didn't write it. (Photo: Bloomberg)

(Bloomberg) –An ideologically divided U.S. Supreme Court gavebusinesses more power to channel disputes into individualarbitration proceedings, siding with a lighting retailer trying toprevent its employees from pressing group claims stemming from aphishing attack.

The 5-4 ruling said courts shouldn't allow class arbitrationunless an agreement clearly authorizes that type of proceeding.

Complete your profile to continue reading and get FREE access to BenefitsPRO, part of your ALM digital membership.

  • Critical BenefitsPRO information including cutting edge post-reform success strategies, access to educational webcasts and videos, resources from industry leaders, and informative Newsletters.
  • Exclusive discounts on ALM, BenefitsPRO magazine and BenefitsPRO.com events
  • Access to other award-winning ALM websites including ThinkAdvisor.com and Law.com
NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.