3 ms·

This response is a little on the hostile side and doesn't address the clear problem that there is an economic incentive for arbitration companies to provide res

This response is a little on the hostile side and doesn't address the clear problem that there is an economic incentive for arbitration companies to provide resolutions favorable to the company providing their source of income. That is a problem in theory with arbitration when contracts prohibit people from taking the case to court if arbitration doesn't prove fair. Dismissing posters as "complainers" and arguing that they don't have first hand experience completely skirts around this problem and isn't a reasonable argument. There also seems to be a flaw with where you suggest people have a bias, then proceed to say maybe the companies should be winning and it's okay to have the bias that "many claims are completely worthless." Statistics can demonstrate that arbitration is more than favorable in situations where companies did something that should at least require a refund, and this has been brought up as evidence in recent articles. There simply is no check or balance to such an arrangement where one party picks and pays for the judge and process that will be used to settle a distribute. I find it suspicious that someone wouldn't see this as a challenge. I've read about the benefits of arbitration in situations where it isn't deployed as such a one-sided method to sidestep the law, but this arrangement isn't one of them.

DannyBee 11y ago
"This response is a little on the hostile side and doesn't address the clear problem that there is an economic incentive for arbitration companies to provide resolutions favorable to the company providing their source of income." You certainly realize the justice system has the same problem, right? Judges are elected in most states, and not by corporations. You are also quite literally paying their salaries. Additionally, if you had any source of statistical data showing that arbitration was an unfair process, that would be admissible to get the arbitration thrown out. "There simply is no check or balance to such an arrangement where one party picks and pays for the judge and process that will be used to settle a distribute" According to roughly all arbitration rules, the arbitrators can be picked by the people complaining.
- cplease 11y ago
  > Additionally, if you had any source of statistical data showing that arbitration was an unfair process, that would be admissible to get the arbitration thrown out. False. The Federal Arbitration Act applies in most cases where a party has "agreed" to arbitration, and pre-empts state law. A party can't just show "any" source of statistical data showing arbitration is unfair. If they run to court, in most cases, all the other party has to do to succeed in a motion to compel arbitration is establish that an arbitration agreement exists, applies, and meets the minimum procedural requirements for arbitration under the FAA. The court will not entertain an inquiry into the fairness of arbitration in the large or examine statistical evidence. It will basically rely on the text of the arbitration agreement standing alone.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    I'm quite aware of what the arbitration act requires/allows. Here's, let's take a look at what you claim won't be admissible: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/10 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/10 (a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration— ... (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them; .. So, i guess you don't think this means what it says?

DannyBee 11y ago

"This response is a little on the hostile side and doesn't address the clear problem that there is an economic incentive for arbitration companies to provide resolutions favorable to the company providing their source of income." You certainly realize the justice system has the same problem, right? Judges are elected in most states, and not by corporations. You are also quite literally paying their salaries. Additionally, if you had any source of statistical data showing that arbitration was an unfair process, that would be admissible to get the arbitration thrown out. "There simply is no check or balance to such an arrangement where one party picks and pays for the judge and process that will be used to settle a distribute" According to roughly all arbitration rules, the arbitrators can be picked by the people complaining.

cplease 11y ago
> Additionally, if you had any source of statistical data showing that arbitration was an unfair process, that would be admissible to get the arbitration thrown out. False. The Federal Arbitration Act applies in most cases where a party has "agreed" to arbitration, and pre-empts state law. A party can't just show "any" source of statistical data showing arbitration is unfair. If they run to court, in most cases, all the other party has to do to succeed in a motion to compel arbitration is establish that an arbitration agreement exists, applies, and meets the minimum procedural requirements for arbitration under the FAA. The court will not entertain an inquiry into the fairness of arbitration in the large or examine statistical evidence. It will basically rely on the text of the arbitration agreement standing alone.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  I'm quite aware of what the arbitration act requires/allows. Here's, let's take a look at what you claim won't be admissible: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/10 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/10 (a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration— ... (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them; .. So, i guess you don't think this means what it says?