Mark Zavislak, Petitioner v. Netflix, Inc.

This case asks whether ERISA, the federal law that governs many workplace benefit plans, required Netflix's plan administrator to disclose four claims administration agreements after a written request. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that those agreements did not fall within ERISA Section 104's disclosure duty.

No oral argument is scheduled. The petition argues that ERISA's text covers binding contracts that govern a plan's operation, while the Ninth Circuit treated these four claims administration agreements as outside the disclosure duty.

The answer could affect how easily workers, retirees, and other plan participants can get the contracts that shape how benefit claims are handled. For example, someone challenging a benefit decision may want to see the agreement that sets out who administers claims and how that process works.

The case asks whether ERISA required disclosure of four claims administration agreements after a written request. The lower courts said those agreements were not covered.

Workers, retirees, and other benefit-plan participants could be affected. Access to these contracts may help them understand how benefit claims are handled.

The Court has not scheduled oral argument, and no decision window is listed yet. The next sign will be another scheduling move on whether to hear the case.