Arbitration Update - Written by Jere Beasley on Thursday, September 25, 2008 8:47 - 0 Comments

The Chamber of Commerce’s research on arbitration is flawed

Two recent papers published or financially supported by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform paint a grossly inaccurate picture of the empirical evidence on binding mandatory arbitration, a comprehensive study by Public Citizen reveals. Both papers were written by Catholic University law professor Peter B. Rutledge. One was issued by the Chamber Institute as an official response to a September 2007 Public Citizen report that found that consumers lost nearly 94% of credit-card disputes administered by the National Forum. The second paper was published as a law review article. Collectively, these “Chamber papers” purported to show that the broad sweep of empirical academic research suggests that individuals enjoy “superior” results in , notwithstanding anecdotal evidence suggesting otherwise.


In mandatory, binding – which consumers unwittingly agree to when they obtain a credit card, cell phone, bank account or a number of other goods and services – consumers lose their right to settle disputes in court and instead are routed to a private, secretive system that favors the company. Congress has a number of pending bills that would give consumers a fair shake when it comes to . Congress should ban any consumer and go back to what was originally supposed to cover – business disputes between businesses.

Public Citizen’s new study analyzes the empirical evidence on and finds that it proves that individuals fare worse in than in court. Significantly, not a single study cited in the Chamber papers showed individuals receiving higher average payments in than court. Individuals also fare worse in most other measures comparing and court, the actual text of the academic research indicates. David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division, observed:

This debate is not just academic. It’s critical to anyone who owns a cell phone, has a bank account, buys a computer or engages in any basic transaction with a large corporation. The Chamber is trying to fool Congress into thinking that is generally fair, despite some well-publicized injustices. But the evidence flatly contradicts the Chamber’s claims.

The study also reveals that in his past scholarship, Professor Rutledge has voiced many of Public Citizen’s criticisms of . For example, he has previously expressed views that arbitrators may have incentives to favor certain parties and that lacks meaningful appeal provisions and can be excessively secretive. Rutledge even called for revoking arbitrators’ immunity from lawsuits in part because they too often ignore the law or their own rules. Despite their celebration of the “empirical evidence,” the Chamber papers take significant liberties in reporting that evidence. Some of these liberties include:

  • The Chamber claims that one study concluded that most clauses appear “to put the consumer on equal terms with the businesses that drafted them . . .” The Chamber omits what followed the ellipses: a warning that “the appearance of a level playing field may be deceptive” and a three-paragraph litany of criticisms against .
  • Rutledge’s law review article claims that only one academic study found that individual claimants prevailed less than 50% of the time in . In fact, Public Citizen’s review found five other such studies – and four of them are cited in the Chamber papers.
  • Both papers use evidence from a 1995 dissertation in their attempt to demonstrate that lawyers require prohibitively high provable damages to take most court cases. Although the papers proffer as a more feasible alternative, they neglect to mention that the same dissertation found that lawyers required higher provable damages to take a case to .
  • The papers cite several surveys that they say demonstrate that individuals are satisfied with . The papers neglect to inform readers that the majority of these surveys concerned the voluntary use of . The difference between voluntary and mandatory is stark. It’s the difference between being forced into a private, secretive forum chosen by business or having the choice whether to go to court or to arbitrate in a fair forum. The Chamber wants businesses to have the right to force on people. It argues that voluntary won’t work because people won’t choose it. But people would choose if it were fair.
  • Four of the five surveys the papers cite were financed by industry groups or by the Chamber itself. Although Rutledge’s law review article singles out one survey as not underwritten by industry associations, this turned out to be spectacularly inaccurate. Not only was the group that funded the survey headed by a founder and director of the National Forum, it listed the same address as the NAF. When Public Citizen called the group’s most recently listed phone number, it reached the NAF managing director’s voice mail.

Taylor Lincoln, Research Director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division, had this to say concerning the group’s report:

The Chamber has expressed a great deal of concern about ensuring that people of modest means have access to justice. Hopefully, our report will disabuse the Chamber of the notion that mandatory is part of the solution.

Congress has the opportunity to stand up to the powerful lobbyists who are opposing all of the legislation on behalf of their corporate clients. Hopefully, we will see some legislation passed on the front that favors consumers for a change.

Source: Public Citizen



Leave a Reply

Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

Powered by WP Hashcash

Recent Settlements - Feb 9, 2012 7:09 - 0 Comments

Settlement In BTSI Defect Case

More In Recent Settlements


Product Liability - Oct 2, 2014 13:14 - 0 Comments

Silent Recalls Should Never Be Allowed, But Are Still Around

More In Product Liability


Recalls Update - Oct 2, 2014 9:39 - 0 Comments

California’s Taylor Farms Recalls Some Tomatoes And Salad Kits

More In Recalls Update