15 U.S.C. § 1226
Motor vehicle franchise contract dispute resolution process
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever a motor vehicle franchise contract provides for the use of arbitration to resolve a controversy arising out of or relating to such contract, arbitration may be used to settle such controversy only if after such controversy arises all parties to such controversy consent in writing to use arbitration to settle such controversy.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever arbitration is elected to settle a dispute under a motor vehicle franchise contract, the arbitrator shall provide the parties to such contract with a written explanation of the factual and legal basis for the award.
Subsection (a) shall apply to contracts entered into, amended, altered, modified, renewed, or extended after
Section 30102(6) of title 49, referred to in subsec. (a)(1)(A), probably should be “section 30102(a)(6) of title 49”, which was redesignated section 30102(a)(7) of title 49 by section 24109(b)(2) of Pub. L. 114–94, div. B, title XXIV,
Section was enacted as part of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, and not as part of act Aug. 8, 1956, ch. 1038, which comprises this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case: Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018).
Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). “, 15 U. S. C. §1226 (a)(2), but Congress has done nothing like that in the NLRA.”
Compucredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665 (2012). “IV) (“No predispute arbitration agree- ment shall be valid or enforceable, if the agreement re- quires arbitration of a dispute arising under this section”); 15 U. S. C. §1226 (a)(2) (2006 ed.) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever a motor vehicle franchise…”
Volvo Trucks North Am., Inc. v. Crescent Ford Truck Sales, Inc., 666 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 2012). “The court did, however, find an independent basis for federal jurisdiction based upon the relief sought under 15 U.S.C. § 1226 , which states that arbitration may be used to resolve a controversy arising out of a motor vehicle franchise contract “only if after such controversy…”
Stephen Morris v. Ernst & Young, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016). “(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1226 (a)(2) (2006 ed.)). Because the language in the two CROA provisions cited by plaintiffs did not expressly state that a predispute arbitration agreement was unenforceable, the Court determined that they were consistent with enforcement of an arbitration…”
Arabian Motors Grp. W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co., 228 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Mich. 2017). “But Arabian Motors says that a federal statute, the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act (the “Fairness Act” or the “Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1226 , renders the delegation unenforceable.”
Kevin Ziober v. Blb Resources, Inc., 839 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2016). “§ 1226 (a)(2) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever a motor vehicle franchise contract provides for the use of arbitration to resolve a controversy arising out of or relating to such contract, arbitration may be used to settle such controversy only if after such…”
Arabian Motors Grp. W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co., 19 F.4th 938 (6th Cir. 2021). “Arabian Motors moved for a preliminary injunction, arguing it could not be forced to arbitrate its claims because the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1226 , requires that an arbitration between dealers and car manufacturers proceed only if…”
Deere & Co. v. State, 130 A.3d 1197 (N.H. 2015). “ge that these portions of RSA 357-C:3, III(p)(3) and RSA 357-C:6, III, as applied to certain other manufacturers, do not conflict with the FAA because those manufacturers are subject to a federal law that provides, in relevant part: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law,…”
Champion Auto Sales, LLC v. Polaris Sales Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 346 (E.D.N.Y 2013). “15 U.S.C. § 1226 . Thus, the Fairness Act precludes the enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration clauses in “motor vehicle franchise contracts.”
Anthony L. Arciniaga v. Gen. Motors Corp., Docket No. 05-6299-Cv, 460 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2006). “15 U.S.C. § 1226 (a)(2). By its terms, the MVFCAFA applies only to “motor vehicle franchise contracts.”
Pride v. Ford Motor Co., 341 F. Supp. 2d 617 (N.D. Miss. 2004). “As for the first step in the court’s analysis, the Plaintiff asserts that the arbitration clause is unenforceable because: (i) 15 U.S.C. § 1226 prohibits this dispute from being arbitrated; and (ii) the Agreement is unconscionable and was procured by fraud.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Ghreiwati Auto, 945 F. Supp. 2d 851 (E.D. Mich. 2013). “, but for which 15 U.S.C. § 1226 only allows the arbitration to take place when both parties to the manufacturer-dealer contract consent, and *854 Ford has withheld its consent, (2) a declaratory judgment that Ford has no obligation -to arbitrate the controversies between itself…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2) — 2 cases
Arabian Motors Grp. W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co., 228 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Mich. 2017). “But Arabian Motors says that a federal statute, the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act (the “Fairness Act” or the “Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1226 , renders the delegation unenforceable.”
Arabian Motors Grp. W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co. (E.D. Mich. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.