AB 2155 amends Code of Civil Procedure section 1281 to limit enforcement of written arbitration agreements in California to the same scope that federal law permits. The bill adds a new proviso: a written agreement is not enforceable under §1281 to the extent it would be unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §1 et seq.).
The practical effect is to incorporate federal exclusions—most notably the FAA’s Section 1 exemption for certain classes of transportation workers and the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021—into California’s arbitration enforcement statute. For practitioners, the change narrows state-level variation in arbitration enforcement but raises interpretive questions about how state courts will apply federal exclusions and whether other state remedies remain available.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds subsection (b) to CCP §1281, instructing California courts not to enforce arbitration agreements under that statute when the agreements would not be enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, including exclusions created by the 2021 federal law addressing sexual assault and sexual harassment claims. It leaves the existing contract‑defenses language in subsection (a) intact.
Who It Affects
Workers covered by the FAA’s Section 1 exemption (e.g., seamen, railroad employees, some interstate commerce workers), survivors of sexual assault or sexual harassment asserting claims, employers and contract drafters who use predispute arbitration clauses, arbitration providers, and civil litigators in California courts.
Why It Matters
The bill harmonizes California’s statutory enforcement rule with federal arbitration exclusions, reducing the room for state‑specific doctrines to create broader arbitration waivers. That alignment will change how California courts assess whether to compel arbitration and focuses litigation on federal statutory boundaries and their judicial interpretation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2155 leaves the familiar baseline of §1281 in place—arbitration clauses are generally valid and enforceable, subject to usual contract‑law defenses—but it adds a gate: state enforcement of arbitration clauses under §1281 now depends on whether federal law would enforce them. The Legislature explicitly tied California’s enforcement standard to the Federal Arbitration Act and to the federal Ending Forced Arbitration Act of 2021, which carved out sexual assault and sexual harassment claims from enforcement of predispute arbitration.
Operationally, when a party asks a California court to compel arbitration under §1281, the court must assess not only state contract defenses but also whether the FAA or its statutory exceptions would permit enforcement. If the FAA would not enforce the clause—for example, because the claimant falls within FAA Section 1’s exemption or because the claim is one Congress excepted under the 2021 law—the court may not order arbitration under §1281.
The bill is careful to limit this rule to enforcement "under this section," meaning it targets the primary statutory route for compelling arbitration in state courts.That textual framing produces two immediate consequences. First, it reduces the likelihood that California will develop enforcement rules that are more permissive than the FAA; the state statute will operate as a mirror to federal enforceability.
Second, it leaves open secondary questions: whether plaintiffs can still avoid arbitration using other California statutory provisions or procedural mechanisms, how courts will handle contracts formed before federal exceptions took effect, and how state courts will interpret ambiguous federal exceptions. Expect litigation to focus on how federal carve‑outs apply in specific fact patterns (who qualifies as "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce," what counts as a claim "relating to" sexual harassment or sexual assault), and on whether this amendment narrows or simply clarifies existing practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2155 amends Code of Civil Procedure §1281 by adding subsection (b): arbitration agreements are not enforceable under §1281 to the extent they are not enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §1 et seq.).
The bill’s legislative findings expressly incorporate FAA Section 1 exemptions (contracts of seamen, railroad employees, and other workers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce) into California enforcement analysis.
AB 2155 also references and imports the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (9 U.S.C. §401 et seq.), meaning predispute arbitration clauses will not be enforced for claims that fall within that federal carve‑out.
The amendment keeps §1281(a)’s existing contract‑defenses language—"save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract"—so traditional state contract defenses remain available in addition to the new FAA‑based limit.
The new language is limited to enforceability "under this section," which raises a practical question: parties may still attempt to avoid arbitration via other state statutes, procedures, or equitable doctrines that are not §1281 enforcement motions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings tying state policy to federal exceptions
This section states the Legislature’s policy to preserve access to state rights and forums and declares the purpose to "incorporate into the California Arbitration Act any and all exclusions under the Federal Arbitration Act," explicitly mentioning FAA Section 1 exemptions and the 2021 Ending Forced Arbitration Act. The findings are directional: they justify the statutory change and signal the Legislature intends California enforcement to reflect federal carve‑outs.
Keeps existing contract‑defenses baseline
The bill leaves the current text of subsection (a) intact: arbitration agreements remain valid and enforceable "save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract." That preserves the ordinary slate of state contract defenses—fraud, duress, unconscionability, mistake—so litigants retain those lines of attack when seeking to resist arbitration.
New federal‑mirror limitation on enforcement under §1281
Subsection (b) is the operative change: it bars enforcement under §1281 to the extent an arbitration agreement is not enforceable under the FAA. Practically, courts compelling arbitration will have to determine whether federal law permits enforcement; where federal law contains an exclusion or exception, §1281 will not supply enforcement authority. Because the text ties the limitation to "this section," it confines the rule to motion practice under §1281 rather than purporting to repeal other statutory or common‑law mechanisms.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment: the bill codifies that predispute arbitration clauses cannot be enforced in claims falling within the 2021 federal carve‑out, increasing plaintiffs’ access to judicial fora and jury trials.
- Transportation workers covered by FAA Section 1 (e.g., seamen and railroad employees): these workers regain clarity that certain arbitration clauses will not be enforced under California’s enforcement statute.
- Plaintiffs’ and consumer‑protection attorneys: the alignment with federal exclusions concentrates litigation on whether a federal exception applies and may preserve state court forums for claims that Congress exempted from forced arbitration.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers and large companies that rely on broad predispute arbitration clauses to move disputes out of court: the bill narrows one statutory route to compel arbitration and could increase litigation costs and public trials for exempt claims.
- Arbitration providers and courts managing arbitration demand: a shift of certain disputes back into court will increase casework for state trial courts and reduce some revenue for private arbitration providers.
- Contract drafters and in‑house counsel: they must reassess arbitration language and consent mechanics to account for federal carve‑outs and potential challenges about whether a claim falls within an exception.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to square two legitimate goals that often collide: preserving Californians’ access to state courts and predictable state law, while deferring to federal arbitration exceptions to avoid state‑created conflicts with the FAA. That resolves some inconsistency but forces courts to apply federal carve‑outs locally—potentially narrowing state‑level consumer and worker protections while also creating fresh litigation over whether particular claims fall inside or outside the federal exclusions.
The bill’s text is short and targeted, but it raises several implementation problems that California courts will have to sort out. First, "to the extent" and "under this section" limit the amendment’s reach to §1281 enforcement motions; the Legislature did not expressly forbid plaintiffs from invoking other California statutes or equitable remedies to avoid arbitration.
That gap will produce disputes about whether parties can circumvent §1281 by using alternate procedural routes.
Second, the amendment binds state enforcement doctrine to federal exceptions whose contours are themselves unsettled. FAA Section 1’s phrase "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" has produced decades of litigation about who qualifies; the EFAA’s scope (what it means for a claim to "relate to" sexual harassment or sexual assault) is also subject to interpretation.
California courts will be pushed into fine‑grained federal statutory analysis and may face decisions that differ from prior state precedents. Finally, because federal law and Supreme Court precedent have historically governed preemption questions in arbitration, anchoring state enforcement to federal exclusions may reduce room for California‑specific protections but will not eliminate preemption litigation—parties will litigate whether federal law actually forbids or allows enforcement in borderline cases.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.