SCOTUS Unanimous: Last Mile Exempt §1 FAA

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 24-935, 608 U.S. ___ (May 28, 2026) regarding the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the question of whether someone can qualify as a worker under the §1 exemption if they never cross state lines and never interact with vehicles that do. Typically, the FAA requires courts to enforce many private arbitration agreements, but it also provides that “nothing” in the law shall be used to compel arbitration in disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of any class of workers “engaged in . . . interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. §1. The Supreme Court’s latest decision eliminates one of the many arguments that have been raised to counteract the interstate arbitration exemption under the FAA. In recent years, SCOTUS addressed the scope of §1’s exemption no fewer than three times. In each case, they rejected efforts to cabin its reach. First, in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. 105 (2019), they held that the “contracts of employment” §1 embraces include contracts governing independent contractors, not just employees. Then, in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022), they held an airline worker who loaded and unloaded cargo fit within §1’s exemption, even though she did not fly planes or otherwise cross state lines. Finally, in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246, 249 (2024), they held that a worker can fall under §1 whether employed in the “transportation industry” or some other, so long as their work “play[s] a direct and necessary role in the free flow of goods across borders.” In the instant mattter, they clarified that independent contractors and employees that make “last mile” deliveries as part of a “continuous journey” of goods from one state to another are exempt from arbitration under §1 of the FAA covering interstate transportation workers, even if all of the distributor’s services are intrastate. The Court stated such workers “can sometimes be direct, necessary, and active participants in moving goods ‘from … points in one state’ to ‘points in another state’ without crossing state lines or interacting with vehicles that do.” See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/52rvabua and https://tinyurl.com/mj39rvtf

Celebrating 25 Years of Mediating!

Hard to believe this month marks my 25th year serving lawyers and litigants as a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator, an Appellate mediator (since the 2001 pilot program with our 5th DCA) and as a federal district court mediator. Back in the day, you had to be a Florida lawyer for at least five years before even becoming certified (much like a judge). I fondly recall my excellent training with former judge David Strawn, a pioneer in the field of mediation. I am still in touch with my mediation training classmates, some of whom are also mediating full-time, and one who took the bench and presided over our business court in Orange County. Through the years, this special field in the law has evolved and some rules have changed, but by and large the basics are the same, proving that our 3,000 year-old tradition of human dispute resolution still very much has a place as really the principal means to dipose of cases in the modern court system. Even with the seismic shift in our technique due to mediating lawsuits mostly online since the pandemic, online platforms are now second nature to judicial officers, practicing lawyers, parties and mediators. Courts continue using technology for online hearings, even though some are requiring physical attendance. This profession of attorney-mediators is now strongly represented by the Florida Bar ADR Section that has supported practitioners of mediation and arbitration for over fifteen years. At the time of state section formation in 2010, I also founded the Orange County Bar Association ADR Committee to deal with local issues in dispute resolution. The discourse among members of both organizations has never been higher, with committed practitioners engaged in changing the role of neutrals for the better through training and rules commentary. While I look forward to continued advances in online dispute resolution-- which does enjoy just as high a success rate in producing settlements-- I also enjoy good old-fashioned face-to-face negotiation! Schedule with me to settle something online or in person here-- https://www.nadn.org/lawrence-kolin

Spotify Payola Case to Arbitrate

Spotify was sued in federal court by a user alleging playlists and recommendations are shaped by undisclosed pay-for-play arrangements and hidden commercial incentives. The streaming service moved to compel arbitration because it provided a conspicuous notice of its current terms of service by email and by an in app pop-up, both of which contained a hyperlink with the opportunity to review the applicable arbitration agreement. Spotify's terms of use contained a mandatory arbitration clause and class action waiver. Spotify's terms also said it may make changes and that,“[i]n some cases, we will notify you in advance, and your continued use of [Spotify] after the changes have been made will constitute your acceptance of the changes.” Terms further provided that “[i]f Spotify makes any material change to the Arbitration Agreement..., you may reject any such change by sending us a personally signed, written notice of your decision to opt out of those changes” by email within 30 days. Plaintiff continued to use Spotify after receiving both notices and did not opt out of changes to the arbitration agreement. Plaintiff then upgraded her Spotify account to the paid subscription service and began receiving downloadable receipts that contained hyperlinks to the operative Terms of Use each billing cycle. The presiding judge found that under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 4, “a district court must enter an order to arbitrate upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in issue.” A court considering whether to compel arbitration pursuant to a purported arbitration agreement must decide: “(1) whether there exists a valid agreement to arbitrate at all under the contract in question and if so, (2) whether the particular dispute sought to be arbitrated falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement.” Applying ordinary contract law principles, courts routinely uphold “‘clickwrap’ (or‘clickthrough’) agreements, which require users to click an ‘I agree’ box after being presented with a list of terms and condi-tions of use” “for the principal reason that the user has affirmatively assented to the terms of agreement by clicking ‘I agree.’” Therefore, Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York issued an order granting Spotify’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissing the class allegations with prejudice. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/bddrkhf2 and https://tinyurl.com/m98eu8na

Join us at OCBA Bench Bar 2026 on May 1!

I am pleased to be asked back to the biennial Orange County Bar Association Bench Bar Conference May 1st in Orlando to discuss private judging and arbitration, including nonbinding arbitration which is widely misunderstood. This year's football-themed event is dubbed "The Ultimate Playbook: Winning Techniques From The Bench." This unique event will bring together 300+ legal professionals, esteemed judges, and influential members from Orange, Osceola, and Seminole counties, all coming together. We'll have enlightening discussions and hear valuable insights from legal experts across various domains, including Business Law, Criminal Law, Estate, Probate & Guardianship, Personal Injury, Circuit Civil, AI Ethics, and more. By being with experienced lawyers and judges, you will learn from the best and gain unparalleled knowledge from seasoned legal professionals who will share their insights on cutting-edge legal topics. Networking with the brightest minds in the legal industry, this meeting fosters valuable relationships that can shape your legal career. Training sessions will enhance your skills and keep you up-to-date with the latest developments in the legal field. We'll also preview tools from various legaltech vendors who will share how their products and services to enhance and streamline your legal practice. My session is entitled "Calling in the Special Teams: Arbitration & Private Judging." In the fast-paced game of litigation, knowing when to call in your ADR “special teams” can be the key to strategic success. This dynamic and engaging CLE will explore how arbitration and private judging are being used as powerful tools to resolve disputes more efficiently, creatively, and cost-effectively. Participants will gain insight into the tactical advantages of these alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including how and when to incorporate them into their legal strategy. Seasoned practitioners will break down best practices, common pitfalls, and recent trends in the use of arbitration clauses, the selection of private judges, and the enforcement of awards and judgments. Whether you're new to ADR or a veteran seeking to expand your toolkit, this session will equip you with the knowledge to confidently navigate outside the traditional courtroom — and make the winning call when it counts. Eloisa Pino, our moderator is joined by Alice Blackwell, Lawrence Kolin and The Honorable Heather Pinder Rodriguez. See more here-- https://orangecountybar.org/resource/resmgr/documents/bench_bar/2026/ocba-bench_bar_schedule-8.5x.pdf

Mediation Magazine Article

So pleased to be published in this month's Mediation Magazine, a new offering from the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Mediation Magazine features a diverse range of articles and other media, including commentary on emerging trends in domestic and international mediation, case studies and lessons learned, interviews with thought leaders, innovations in mediation process design, research summaries, ethical considerations, and cross-cultural perspectives. It also offers practice-oriented content such as negotiation techniques, mediator toolkits, and dispute system design strategies. According to AAA, articles are written by leading voices in the field—practicing mediators, legal professionals, academics, and dispute resolution experts—and are complemented by interactive features such as videos to enrich engagement and accessibility. Published continuously throughout the year, Mediation Magazine aims to inform, inspire, and connect professionals committed to advancing effective, fair, and forward-looking mediation practices globally. I serve on the national panels for AAA commerical mediation and arbitraion. Though the now hundred-year-old non-profit organization has arbitration in the name, it maintains a robust mediation program. There is a growing prevalence among those drafting business contracts of including clauses requiring mediation as a precondition to initiating a lawsuit or arbitration. Disputes arising from contract obligations can be complex, technical, and even structural. Issues regarding the formation, interpretation, or enforcement of obligations invite evidentiary disputes over the circumstances surrounding the making and performance of the subject agreement. Most disputes result from the breakdown of a relationship, so I thought I'd expound on what happens in business cases and give some practical perspectives. Commercial mediators are able to ascertain the root cause of that breakdown and often help parties self-determine the outcome and avoid going to court or arbitration to get a resolution. See more here-- https://mediationmagazine.adr.org/practical-perspectives-on-commercial-mediation/

Comments to Civil Rules Proposals on Mediation & Arbitration Due 5/1

The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee submitted a couple of proposals to the Florida Supreme Court including amendments likely to simplify important rules concerning mediation and arbitration. First, regarding referral of cases under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700 (Rules Common to Mediation and Arbitration), a judge may enter an order referring all or any part of a case to mediation or arbitration, unless prohibited by law. The parties to any case may agree to mediate or arbitrate any issue at any time. Except as provided in this rule, mediation and arbitration must be conducted in person. This is the new default, even though well over 90% of cases are resolved online since Covid. The judge may order, or the parties may stipulate, that the mediation or arbitration may be conducted through the use of communication technology. To be clear, communication technology must include both audio and video unless all parties stipulate or the judge finds cause. This seems to be due to the fact that many parties of late claim they don't have functioning cameras and some insurance adjusters appear with black screens on Zoom. The proposed amendments would essentially require a mediation or arbitration via remote technology must include both audio and video-- i.e., fully appearing online at the proceeding. In addition, the Civil Rules Committee is proposing amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820 (Hearing Procedures for Non-Binding Arbitration). The new language would, among other things, require an arbitrator to file with a court a notice of service of the arbitration decision, but not the actual arbitration decision itself. This might eliminate filing under seal which can be difficult for neutrals, depending on the clerk procedures in each county. The party entitled to a judgment if no request for trial de novo is made, or after a trial de novo is conducted, would be required to file the arbitration decision with the court. The proposed amendments would also require that a party file only a written request for trial to reject an arbitrator’s decision, and that a timely request for trial “be construed so as to do substantial justice.” Members of the Committee now agree that it is duplicative and unnecessary for a party to say both that the arbitration award is being deemed rejected and that a trial de novo is being requested. Rather, it is implicit that a request for a trial de novo is a rejection of the arbitration award. See more here-- In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820, Case No. SC2026-0040 and In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700, Case No. SC2025-2041 https://acis.flcourts.gov/portal/search/case

AAA Announces Resolution Simulator At Legal Week

Dubbed a "Dispute Revolution," the American Arbitration Association is launching its Resolution Simulator. Expanding the utility of the previously launched construction AI Arbitrator, the Resolution Simulator uses the same reasoning and analysis as the AI Arbitrator to provide simulated decisions based on the user submissions and feedback. Designed for single party use in documents-only AAA commercial and construction disputes, it promises explainable, informational insights grounded in structured legal reasoning, analysis, and decision logic. Parties may use it to understand how an arbitrator may resolve a dispute, develop their legal or negotiation strategy, or level-set internally with clients or counsel. It may also inform alternative paths to resolution, such as settlement or mediation. Ultimately, AAA hopes the product brings legal teams insight before escalation, empowering strategic decision-making and informing a path to resolution. The latest product launch underscores the AAA's commitment to responsible AI adoption, with governance, transparency, and auditability guiding the design and deployment of all AI-enabled tools. According to the AAA, this effort builds upon their 100-year history of helping parties navigate conflict through fair, transparent, and trusted processes. AI Arbitrator's Resolution Simulator responds to user demand for practical evaluative and decisioning tools, particularly in the early stages of a dispute, by illustrating how an arbitrator might analyze the dispute. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/4azzjb57 and https://feature.adr.org/LegalWeek2026