Arbitration
SunTrust Bank v. Bickerstaff
Date: Jan. 12, 2026
Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a state court rule permitting a proposed class representative to effectively opt out of arbitration on behalf of all unnamed class members
Case Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a Georgia appellate court decision that allowed a proposed class representative to opt out of arbitration on behalf of all proposed class members, leaving in place a ruling that the FAA preempts that approach.
In 2010, SunTrust customer Jeff Bickerstaff sued, alleging that SunTrust’s overdraft fees violated Georgia usury laws and seeking to represent a class. SunTrust governed customer accounts through written deposit agreements that required sufficient balances, authorized flat overdraft fees under Georgia law, and barred enforcement by third parties. The agreements also required individual arbitration, though SunTrust later allowed customers to opt out only by sending timely written notice, not by filing suit.
After SunTrust moved to compel arbitration, the trial court ruled that Bickerstaff had opted out for himself but could not do so for the class and denied class certification. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed, citing the FAA and the rule that a named plaintiff cannot bind absent class members. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lawsuit tolled the opt-out period and allowed putative class members to reject arbitration unless they left the class. After the U.S. Supreme Court denied review, the trial court certified a class and denied SunTrust’s renewed arbitration motions, and in 2025 the Georgia Supreme Court declined further review. Separate from the arbitration issue, ABA previously filed an amicus brief arguing that overdraft fees are not subject to Georgia’s usury law because overdraft fees are not interest.
Following the Georgia Supreme Court denial, SunTrust petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review. SunTrust argued the Georgia Supreme Court violated the FAA and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, emphasizing the Court has repeatedly held that state courts may not rely on state law to evade the FAA. SunTrust contended the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision allows a single individual to nullify hundreds of thousands of arbitration agreements to which he is not a party, despite those agreements’ clear requirement of individualized notice. SunTrust stressed that this outlier ruling conflicts with the FAA and this Court’s arbitration decisions. SunTrust also argued that the decision imposed an arbitration-specific rule that undermines the FAA’s pro-arbitration framework. However, the U.S. Supreme Court also declined to review without providing further commentary.
Bottom Line: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a Georgia decision allowing a proposed class representative to opt out of arbitration on behalf of unnamed class members, leaving in place a ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted SunTrust’s challenge.
Documents: Petition
