In Valerio’s Auto Sales v. Flowers, No. 1210295, 2022 Ala. LEXIS 102 (Oct. 21, 2022), the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s denial of a car dealer’s petition to compel arbitration.

In support of its motion to compel arbitration, Valerio’s submitted to the trial court a copy of the contract Flowers signed when she purchased her vehicle; that contract contained the arbitration provision described above. Valerio’s further noted in its motion this Court’s caselaw indicating that the sale of a used vehicle is in every instance a transaction affecting interstate commerce. See, e.g., Edwards v. Costner, 979 So. 2d 757, 762 (Ala. 2007) (“It is unquestionable that the sale of an automobile, either new or used, ‘use[s] the channels of interstate commerce,’ ‘involve[s] … things in interstate commerce,’ and ‘involve[s] general activities having a substantial effect on interstate commerce.'” (quoting McKay Bldg. Co. v. Juliano, 949 So. 2d 882, 885 (Ala. 2006))); Dan Wachtel Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Inc. v. Modas, 891 So. 2d 287, 292 (Ala. 2004) (“This Court has previously recognized that the purchase of a used automobile from an automobile dealer was a transaction that involved interstate commerce.”). Thus, Valerio’s met its initial burden of showing that it was entitled to an order granting its motion to compel arbitration.