Leaving Neverland legal battle to go to arbitration On 20 September, US District Court Judge George H Wu ruled that the lawsuit brought against HBO by Michael Jackson’s estate must go to arbitration, finding that HBO was bound by a 1992 arbitration agreement that stated the network was not permitted to make any disparaging remarks about Jackson or do any act that may harm or disparage or cause to lower in esteem his reputation. The dispute arose after HBO aired the controversial documentary ‘Leaving Neverland’ earlier this year. Also noteworthy, and going against the usual practice, the estate’s lawyers have requested that the arbitration take place in public.
California legislature looks to penalise companies for stalling on payment of arbitration fees A bill is now awaiting action by Governor Gavin Newsom which would penalise companies that attempt to stall employment and consumer arbitration proceedings by declining to pay the fees required to initiate the arbitration process. Governor Newsom has until 13 October to decide whether or not to sign the proposed law. Arbitration in the employment and consumer space has made headlines repeatedly in the US with US Supreme Court rulings allowing businesses to require disputes to be arbitrated individually depriving employees and consumers of the ability to pursue their claims by way of class action. High profile cases where businesses have refused to pay the requisite fees have included Uber (in respect of which more than 12,000 drivers filed for individual arbitration), Lyft (similarly in respect of more than 3,000 drivers) and Chipotle. The companies are said to have refused to make payment on the basis the claims lacked legitimacy. The proposed bill, if passed, will require companies to pay arbitration fees within 30 days of receiving an invoice and will penalise companies if they fail to meet that obligation. Arbitration proceedings under NAFTA held not subject to the GDPR The GDPR, privacy and data security have been the talk of the town in recent times with much of that talk focused on the extent to which GDPR obligations might extend and apply to international arbitration. The question was directly raised in the recent NAFTA investor-state arbitration: Tennant Energy LLC (USA) v Government of Canada (PCA Case No 2018-54). One of the arbitrators in that case was a British national. Tennant argued in favour of the GDPR having application, submitting that, with the