3 ms·

The reason for the fear is the possibility of bias against the consumer. If companies pay for the cost of arbitration and everything is behind closed doors, how

The reason for the fear is the possibility of bias against the consumer. If companies pay for the cost of arbitration and everything is behind closed doors, how do we know we can trust the process to be fair? I’m not a lawyer or a legal expert or even believe the judicial system is always fair. But at least it’s open and rules are well laid. So as a layman, why should I believe arbitration? (Genuine question; not a judgment)

ABCLAW 4y ago
The main reason for the fear is the loss of class action potential, which means almost all small disputes are impossible to obtain redress for. If you're in a situation where the case is worth 5-50k, it's generally a better option to go for an arbitration barring concerns associated with bias (which very much do exist - many specialty boards like various copyright boards consistently make pro-industry mistakes in procedure), but the primary overarching anti-consumer element of mandated arbitration clauses is the removal of class actions as a vehicle for making mass-litigation viable.
- crashbunny 4y ago
  Blocking class action for arbitration is a double-edged sword for companies. I can't remember what article I read ages ago, not this one, but this one seems to say the same thing from skimming the top https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/jpmorgan-facebook-fight-mass-arbitration-legal-strategy https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/jpmorgan-fa... Instead of companies defending one class action suit, they (potentially) defend 1000s of individual disputes in arbitration and it ends up costing them more. I'm just guessing here, I have no idea, if OP didn't settle and lost, it would have cost the company more than what they paid to settle. These days I'd image you could do the arbitration over a video call. Easily worth my time for $2000.

ABCLAW 4y ago

The main reason for the fear is the loss of class action potential, which means almost all small disputes are impossible to obtain redress for. If you're in a situation where the case is worth 5-50k, it's generally a better option to go for an arbitration barring concerns associated with bias (which very much do exist - many specialty boards like various copyright boards consistently make pro-industry mistakes in procedure), but the primary overarching anti-consumer element of mandated arbitration clauses is the removal of class actions as a vehicle for making mass-litigation viable.

crashbunny 4y ago
Blocking class action for arbitration is a double-edged sword for companies. I can't remember what article I read ages ago, not this one, but this one seems to say the same thing from skimming the top https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/jpmorgan-facebook-fight-mass-arbitration-legal-strategy https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/jpmorgan-fa... Instead of companies defending one class action suit, they (potentially) defend 1000s of individual disputes in arbitration and it ends up costing them more. I'm just guessing here, I have no idea, if OP didn't settle and lost, it would have cost the company more than what they paid to settle. These days I'd image you could do the arbitration over a video call. Easily worth my time for $2000.