Our clients generally prefer arbitration to litigation. Arbitration is less expensive, has much more balanced discovery, and it’s faster. It’s probably not statistically significant, but we think we’ve seen an uptick in cases in our practice footprint involving arbitration clauses. The cases we’ve blogged about recently involve some kind of direct interaction with a patient where a manufacturer can include an arbitration clause in the terms of a contract. Examples include the on-line sale of dental aligners and a glucose monitoring app for a patient’s smartphone. Today’s decision, Johnson v. Luminary Genetics, 2026 WL 2886002 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2026), is another instance where a manufacturer included an arbitration clause in its contract with a consumer—this time in the context of genetic testing.