Ana Bernal v. Kohl's Corporation

── Ana Bernal v. Kohl's Corporation ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: May 01, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-2806 ANA BERNAL, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. KOHL’S CORPORATION and KOHL’S, INC., Respondents-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 23-cv-1542 — Lynn Adelman, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED SEPTEMBER 17, 2025 — DECIDED MAY 1, 2026 ____________________ Before SCUDDER, PRYOR, and KOLAR, Circuit Judges. PRYOR, Circuit Judge. Petitioners-Appellants Ana Bernal, Amiee Marquez, Patricia Juarez, and Clara Roa (“Petition- ers”) purchased products online from Kohl’s website between 2020 and 2022. Kohl’s is a national retailer with its principal place of business in Wisconsin. To purchase products on Kohl’s website, the Petitioners had to accept Kohl’s Terms and 2 No. 24-2806 Conditions, which incorporated an arbitration clause. 1 The ar- bitration agreement in those Terms and Conditions required the Petitioners to arbitrate “any dispute” with Kohl’s before the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). It also man- dated that, prior to filing arbitration demands, the Petitioners had to serve notices of the dispute on Kohl’s in an effort to resolve their complaints prior to instituting the arbitration. Contending that Kohl’s engaged in false and deceptive marketing practices, the Petitioners followed the process laid out in the arbitration agreement. They served notices of dis- pute on Kohl’s and attempted to resolve their claims in medi- ation. After that failed, they filed claims of false and deceptive marketing practices by Kohl’s with the AAA. The Petitioners also paid all the requisite fees the AAA charges when a party institutes arbitration. The AAA informed the parties that Kohl’s had not filed its arbitration agreement with it as re- quired by its rules, so it directed Kohl’s to file the agreement or to let it know that it would not do so. In response, Kohl’s communicated to the AAA that it was refusing to file its arbi- tration agreement. 2 Consequently, the AAA, pursuant to its rules, exercised its discretion by terminating the proceedings and closing each Petitioner’s case. The Petitioners responded by filing a petition to compel arbitration in the district court pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act. In the petition, the Petitioners argued 1 The Petitioners assented to either the 2020 Terms and Conditions or the 2022 Terms and Conditions. The 2020 and 2022 Terms and Conditions are identical for purposes of this litigation. 2 There are no facts in the record providing the reason Kohl’s refused to register its agreement. No. 24-2806 3 that by refusing to register its agreement and pay the neces- sary fees as outlined in AAA’s rules, Kohl’s actions amounted to a failure to arbitrate. See 9 U.S.C. § 4. They sought an order directing Kohl’s to arbitrate their claims before the AAA, file its arbitration agreement with the AAA, and pay the corre- sponding fees. The district court denied the petition. Drawing from Wall- rich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 106 F.4th 609 (7th Cir. 2024), the court held it lacked the authority to disturb the AAA’s decision to terminate arbitration proceedings. Accord- ing to the district court, the parties’ arbitration had unfolded in line with the process the parties agreed to in their arbitra- tion agreement. For the reasons explained below, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background The Petitioners reside in California and purchased prod- ucts online from Kohl’s