3 ms·

The only downside is that the consumer never has a choice in the matter of arbitration at all. There's a take-it-or-leave-it EULA, which if you reject you cann

by labster 11y ago

The only downside is that the consumer never has a choice in the matter of arbitration at all. There's a take-it-or-leave-it EULA, which if you reject you cannot legally use the $300 item you bought. The consumer never has a chance to choose if they get arbitration or not. The consumer never has a choice of the arbitrator. The consumer does not have a choice of venue. The only choice the consumer has is to whether or not to file suit. I've been dreaming about a ballot proposition which says that if a person agreed to a contract that enforced binding arbitration, and was never given an opportunity to amend the contract, then the consumer would be eligible to pick the arbitrator from the set of licensed arbitrators. The company still gets its cost savings from avoiding court, but is not in effect buying a whole firm of arbitrators. The consumer at least can get some attempt at a fair choice in a case of a complaint, which is more choice than they have now.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
stult 11y ago
>I've been dreaming about a ballot proposition which says that if a person agreed to a contract that enforced binding arbitration, and was never given an opportunity to amend the contract, then the consumer would be eligible to pick the arbitrator from the set of licensed arbitrators. The Supreme Court decided in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws disfavoring arbitration. Your proposed law would invalidate a large number of existing arbitration agreements and so would likely also be preempted. At this point, it will take an act of Congress to make any significant changes to existing consumer arbitration laws because conflict preemption will invalidate nearly any conceivable state law favoring consumers. It's an upsetting state of affairs because the federal government does little to protect consumers yet consistently interferes with the ability of state governments to do so (see, e.g., the Office of Comptroller of Currency's frequent interventions to prevent state regulators from investigating predatory lending practices in the years leading up to the financial crisis).

by labster 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

stult 11y ago

>I've been dreaming about a ballot proposition which says that if a person agreed to a contract that enforced binding arbitration, and was never given an opportunity to amend the contract, then the consumer would be eligible to pick the arbitrator from the set of licensed arbitrators. The Supreme Court decided in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws disfavoring arbitration. Your proposed law would invalidate a large number of existing arbitration agreements and so would likely also be preempted. At this point, it will take an act of Congress to make any significant changes to existing consumer arbitration laws because conflict preemption will invalidate nearly any conceivable state law favoring consumers. It's an upsetting state of affairs because the federal government does little to protect consumers yet consistently interferes with the ability of state governments to do so (see, e.g., the Office of Comptroller of Currency's frequent interventions to prevent state regulators from investigating predatory lending practices in the years leading up to the financial crisis).