FEDERAL · 15 U.S.C. · Chapter 27
Motor vehicle franchise contract dispute resolution process
Current through Pub. L. 119-102
(a)Election of arbitration
(1)Definitions
For purposes of this subsection—
(A)the term "motor vehicle" has the meaning given such term in section 30102(6) of title 49; 1 and
(B)the term "motor vehicle franchise contract" means a contract under which a motor vehicle manufacturer, importer, or distributor sells motor vehicles to any other person for resale to an ultimate purchaser and authorizes such other person to repair and service the manufacturer's motor vehicles.
(2)Consent required
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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
15 U.S.C. § 1226 (Motor vehicle franchise contract dispute resolution process) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis
584 U.S. 497 (Supreme Court, 2018)
Compucredit Corp. v. Greenwood
132 S. Ct. 665 (Supreme Court, 2012)
Anthony L. Arciniaga v. General Motors Corporation, Docket No. 05-6299-Cv
460 F.3d 231 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Arabian Motors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co.
19 F.4th 938 (Sixth Circuit, 2021)
Stephen Morris v. Ernst & Young
834 F.3d 975 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Kevin Ziober v. Blb Resources, Inc.
839 F.3d 814 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Crescent Ford Truck Sales, Inc.
666 F.3d 932 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)
Ford Motor Co. v. Ghreiwati Auto
945 F. Supp. 2d 851 (E.D. Michigan, 2013)
Champion Auto Sales, LLC v. Polaris Sales Inc.
943 F. Supp. 2d 346 (E.D. New York, 2013)
Major Cadillac, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.
280 S.W.3d 717 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)
Pride v. Ford Motor Co.
341 F. Supp. 2d 617 (N.D. Mississippi, 2004)
Arabian Motors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co.
228 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Michigan, 2017)
Adam U. Steines v. Westgate Palace, L.L.C.
113 F.4th 1335 (Eleventh Circuit, 2024)
Arciniaga v. General Motors Corp.
418 F. Supp. 2d 374 (S.D. New York, 2005)
Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Sud's of Peoria, Inc.
474 F.3d 966 (Seventh Circuit, 2007)
Birru v. Barr
(N.D. California, 2020)
Rodriguez Diaz v. Barr
(N.D. California, 2020)
Juan De Dios Armenta Soto v. Kristi Noem, et al.
(D. Arizona, 2025)
(HC) Riego v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(E.D. California, 2025)
Subaru of America, Inc. v. Putnam Automotive, Inc.
(California Court of Appeal, 2021)
Source Credit
History
(Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, §11028, Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1835.)
Editorial Notes
Editorial Notes
References in Text
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, Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1706.
Codification
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.
References in Text
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, Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1706.
Codification
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.