Standards for challenging international arbitration awards in the United States are defined in the Federal Arbitration Act and generally follow the grounds for non-recognition of arbitration awards in the New York Convention. The reasons are: (1) the prize was obtained through corruption, fraud or inappropriate means; (2) there was clearly bias or corruption by arbitrators; (3) the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct by refusing to hear evidence relevant and relevant to the controversy or any other fault that infringed a party`s rights; or (4) the arbitrators exceeded their powers or executed imperfectly that no reciprocal, final and definitive decision was taken on the submitted object. Mr Heller put forward two arguments as to why the arbitration agreement with Uber was not valid: that the clause was null and void because it was null and void because it was outside the ESA. The Court ruled only on the first question and refused to answer ESA`s question. To the extent that scotus stated that the New York Convention was “simply silent on the issue of non-signatory application,” and that silence is “practical” because, in the history of the draft, it is stated that the Convention was intended to prevent States Parties from applying domestic law that prevents non-signatories from applying arbitration agreements in additional circumstances.” Although the application of local law is not prescribed for this purpose, not all local laws are suitable for such an application. As Sotomayor J.A. stated in a brief concurring opinion, there will be (a) significant differences between states with respect to their principles of just Estoppel and (b) any referral of local law to arbitration of the parties must be consistent with the FAA`s fundamental principle that consent and not coercion is the basis of private arbitration. In other words, the FAA itself limits the application of state legal doctrines to party arbitration issues, since the fundamental principle of consent to arbitration must be maintained. We will be curious to know what impact this assessment will have on Justice Sotomayor`s position the next time SCOTUS discusses a “class arbitration procedure.”) In each of these cases, the applicants were workers who had agreed, in employment contracts, to settle all disputes arising from their employment individually and to waive collective or collective rights.