The ceasefire has collapsed. In a dramatic new twist to an already volatile legal brawl, Keller Postman LLC has accused Tubi Inc. of reneging on a carefully brokered settlement that sought to cool a high-stakes arbitration dispute — one that could engulf over 24,000 individual claims.

The plaintiffs' firm struck back Thursday, filing a scorching rebuttal in Washington, D.C., federal court, insisting it upheld every term of the January 2024 agreement and blasting Tubi for allegedly distorting the deal in an effort to regain courtroom leverage.

“Tubi is unhappy with the results of the process it bargained for,” Keller Postman fired off in the court filing, arguing the streaming service is attempting to relitigate what it already agreed to.

The Anatomy of a Legal Standoff

The origins of this bitter conflict trace back to Tubi's 2023 lawsuit against Keller Postman, accusing the firm of disrupting a $20 million class action settlement by persuading clients to opt out and instead bombarding the platform with thousands of arbitration claims related to alleged user agreement violations and targeted advertising — claims rooted in California discrimination law.

The parties had reached a fragile agreement in January, forged in a 45-minute courtroom recess during a December hearing that saw tensions boiling over. U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, exasperated by the escalating feud, warned she would not “deal with a bunch of people taking potshots at each other,” threatening to open the gates to “total open warfare.”

The resulting pact was supposed to change the tide. Keller Postman dropped its California lawsuit and ethics-based motion to disqualify Jenner & Block LLP, Tubi’s legal team. In exchange, Tubi and Jenner & Block agreed to halt their D.C. and Delaware lawsuits, and both sides agreed to procedural terms for arbitration — most notably, allowing 10 arbitrators instead of just one to handle the sprawling mass of claims.

Ceasefire Crumbles: “Cracks in the Truce”

But that brittle peace didn’t last. Last month, Tubi claimed Keller Postman had breached the agreement, accusing it of reverting to tactics courts had already condemned and attempting to block the court from viewing arbitration rulings and outcomes.

In a March 25 status report, Tubi claimed Keller Postman had resumed filing arbitration claims on behalf of clients who fell outside the original agreement, thus undermining the intended scope of the settlement.

Keller Postman responded with fury, declaring that Tubi’s accusations were unfounded and that the company was simply trying to muzzle legitimate appeals from thousands of users still fighting to opt out of the Illinois class settlement in Gregory v. Tubi Inc.

Appeals in Motion: Arbitration’s Next Wave?

The firm emphasized that nothing in the January agreement required those clients to waive their appellate rights if their opt-out bids were denied by the Illinois court. As of now, about 8,700 clients are appealing, and Keller Postman argues that if they win, arbitration must continue — either merged with the existing 10 consolidated cases or added as an 11th.

Tubi, however, maintains that arbitration should be limited strictly to those who were explicitly allowed to opt out of the Illinois settlement. Any other claim, they say, goes beyond the agreed-upon boundaries.

No Comment, But All Eyes on What Comes Next

Neither Tubi nor Keller Postman responded immediately to requests for comment. But with the fragile agreement now appearing more like a ticking legal time bomb, the federal court may soon find itself once again at the center of a multi-jurisdictional legal maelstrom.

Representing Tubi are Brandon D. Fox, Kelly M. Morrison, and Sati Harutyunyan of Jenner & Block LLP. Representing Keller Postman are in-house attorneys Warren D. Postman, Albert Y. Pak, and Kiran N. Bhat.

Whether this spirals into total legal warfare or somehow returns to arbitration hinges on what happens next in the Illinois appeal — a pivotal moment that could determine the fate of thousands of consumers, millions of dollars, and the future of mass arbitration strategy in the streaming era.