for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

Mass. at 354 (fraud-in-the-inducement defense to an
arbitration agreement is valid, and not subject to FAA
preemption, because the defense applies to contracts
generally, and not just arbitration agreements); Warfield,
IS4 Mass. at 398-400 (public policy precluding waiver of
any c. 1518 right, unless the written waiver is clear and
unmistakable, is not preempted by FAA, because all c. 151B
rights are so protected, whether or not arbitration is
involved); Feeney, 451 Mass. at 208-210 (class action
waiver in an arbitration agreement, that had the effect of
prohibiting small consumer protection act claims, violates
pub]-ic policy and voids the arbitration provision; and the
policy protecting small" c. 93A claims is not preempted by
the FAA because it is not inherently antagonistic towards
arbitration, and applies to other actions that would impair
c. 93A claims).
The courts have not, nor could they, authorize coerced
arbitration agreements. "[Alrbitration under the [FAA] is
a matter of consent, not coercion." Volt Info. Sci., Inc.
v. Bd. "._-I of Tr. of Leland Stanford, 109 S. Ct. 1248, 1256
(1989); Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, -_ 115 S. Ct.
1212, 1216 (1995); Waffle House, Inc., 122 S . Cf. aC 769.
The Supreme Court has enforced arbitration agreements only
in the absence of cvidencc of coercion. Gilmer v.
-
Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 111 S. Ct. 1647, 1656 (1991)
("There is no indication . . . that Gilrner . . . was
46