FLI-LO Falcon, LLC V. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 22-35818 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
The case involves a dispute between Amazon and its delivery service partners (DSPs), who are business entities that entered into Delivery Service Program Agreements with Amazon. These agreements contained an arbitration provision, stipulating that disputes arising from the agreements would be resolved by binding arbitration conducted by the American Arbitration Association, rather than in court. The plaintiffs, who are or were DSPs, argued that the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) "transportation worker exemption" applied to them, which would exempt them from the FAA's coverage and allow them to bring their dispute to court.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington rejected the plaintiffs' argument and granted Amazon's motion to compel arbitration, dismissing the case without prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the FAA's "transportation worker exemption" did not extend to business entities or to commercial contracts like the DSP Agreement. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. The court found that the arbitration agreement contained a delegation provision, which incorporated AAA rules delegating threshold issues to the arbitrator. The court concluded that the delegation provision was between sophisticated parties, incorporated the AAA rules, and therefore must be enforced. Thus, the plaintiffs' remaining unconscionability arguments directed at the arbitration agreement as a whole must be decided by the arbitrator.
Court Description: Federal Arbitration Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s order granting Amazon’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissing without prejudice a case arising from a dispute between Amazon and the delivery service partners (DSP) with whom it contracts to provide local delivery services.
Plaintiffs are or were business entities who entered into Delivery Service Program Agreements (“DSP Agreements”) with Amazon that contained an arbitration provision (“Arbitration Agreement”), providing that disputes arising from DSP Agreements would be resolved by binding arbitration conducted by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) rather than in court.
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governs arbitration agreements in contracts evidencing a transaction involving commerce. Section I of the FAA, the “transportation worker exemption,” exempts from the FAA’s coverage “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” The panel held that Section I’s transportation worker exemption did not extend to business entities or to commercial contracts like the DSP Agreement. No business entity is similar in nature to the actual human workers enumerated by the text of the transportation worker exemption, and Section I’s residual clause referring to “any other class of workers” did not extend to business entities like plaintiffs.
The panel rejected plaintiffs’ argument that even if they were not eligible for Section I’s transportation worker exemption, the Arbitration Agreement should not be enforced against them because it is unconscionable. The Arbitration Agreement contained a Delegation Provision, which incorporated AAA rules delegating threshold issues to the arbitrator. The panel assumed, without deciding, that plaintiffs sufficiently challenged the Delegation Provision itself as unconscionable, and that plaintiffs’ assertion that they lacked business sophistication was relevant. The panel nevertheless rejected plaintiffs’ unconscionability challenge because plaintiffs failed to create a dispute of material fact regarding their sophistication. The panel concluded that the Delegation Provision was between sophisticated parties, incorporated the AAA rules, and therefore must be enforced. Thus, plaintiffs’ remaining unconscionability arguments directed at the Arbitration Agreement as a whole must be decided by the arbitrator.
Concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, Judge H.A. Thomas agreed with the majority that (1) plaintiffs are not eligible for the FAA’s transportation worker exemption, and (2) plaintiffs’ challenge to their arbitration agreements’ delegation clauses was foreclosed because the record revealed no dispute of material fact regarding whether plaintiffs were “sophisticated” entities. She would not go as far as the majority in holding that business entities can never be subject to the transportation worker exemption because it is unnecessary to reach the question whether there are any circumstances under which a business entity could qualify for the transportation worker exemption.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.