4 ms·
It's a bit more specific than just being "faster" and "more efficient". There's two main advantages: First, waiver of class-action rights. This is a big deal b
by ThrustVectoring 5y ago
It's a bit more specific than just being "faster" and "more efficient". There's two main advantages:
First, waiver of class-action rights. This is a big deal because there's a cottage industry of enterprising lawyers who do find a couple main plaintiffs, generate a suit on behalf of a large class against a deep-pocketed defendant, and settle for something around a dollar per class member plus millions in legal fees.
Second is a limitation on discovery and subpoena rights for plaintiffs. In a traditional court setting, you may be allowed to force a company to turn over extensive communication records and other documents, corporate executives to testify or be deposed, and even burden non-party witnesses (eg, part suppliers).
In many jurisdictions, companies that wish to use binding arbitration have to pay the entirety of the significant fees to fund the arbitration system (and in a timely manner). It's still worthwhile for them to do so, even if they aren't tipping the scales of justice one micrometer. With the exact same outcome as a court case, the arbitration fees are fully worth it to avoid discovery, better protect executives from being forced to testify, dodge class-action fishing expeditions, etc.
- matsemann 5y agoTrue reason is of course that the arbitration courts side with those paying the bills. Otherwise they would have few repeat customers.
- t0suj4 5y agoIf you can buy a judgement wouldn't people just refuse to be judged by such courts? The arbiter would risk losing all their customers.
- lovich 5y agoWhen it’s a take it or leave it agreement and every company has added it to their offers, there’s not really a whole lot of choice
- AutumnCurtain 5y agoSee Epic v. Lewis
- jasonfarnon 5y agoA fourth reason corporations favor them over the courts: The proceedings and outcomes are not in the public record.