Arbitration Update - Written by Jere Beasley on Thursday, September 25, 2008 8:47 - 0 Comments
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 Arbitration 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 arbitration, notwithstanding anecdotal evidence suggesting otherwise.
In mandatory, binding arbitration – 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 arbitration. Congress should ban any consumer arbitration and go back to what arbitration was originally supposed to cover – business disputes between businesses.
Public Citizen’s new study analyzes the empirical evidence on arbitration and finds that it proves that individuals fare worse in arbitration than in court. Significantly, not a single study cited in the Chamber papers showed individuals receiving higher average payments in arbitration than court. Individuals also fare worse in most other measures comparing arbitration 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 arbitration 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 arbitration. For example, he has previously expressed views that arbitrators may have incentives to favor certain parties and that arbitration 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 arbitration 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 arbitration.
- Rutledge’s law review article claims that only one academic study found that individual claimants prevailed less than 50% of the time in arbitration. 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 arbitration 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 arbitration.
- The papers cite several surveys that they say demonstrate that individuals are satisfied with arbitration. The papers neglect to inform readers that the majority of these surveys concerned the voluntary use of arbitration. The difference between voluntary and mandatory arbitration 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 arbitration on people. It argues that voluntary arbitration won’t work because people won’t choose it. But people would choose arbitration 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 claim turned out to be spectacularly inaccurate. Not only was the group that funded the survey headed by a founder and director of the National Arbitration 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 arbitration is part of the solution.
Congress has the opportunity to stand up to the powerful lobbyists who are opposing all of the arbitration legislation on behalf of their corporate clients. Hopefully, we will see some legislation passed on the arbitration front that favors consumers for a change.
Source: Public Citizen
Leave a Reply
- Testosterone Multidistrict Litigation Has Been Formed
- Exploding Airbags is the Next Hidden Danger Lurking on the Horizon
- Favorite Bible Verses
- An Update on the Firm's Mass Torts Litigation
- The Civil Justice System Does Make a Difference
- BP's Stay Request Fails Before the Supreme Court
- Eight Car Makers Join in the Recall of Exploding Airbags
- The Deepwater Horizon Claims Program is Up and Running Again
- Favorite Bible Verses
- J&J Pays Oregon $4 Million To Settle Hip Implant Marketing Claims
- EPA Should Update Fracking Pollution Regulations
- Deepwater Fracking Raises Environmental Concerns
- $27.8 Million Settlement Finalized In TVA Coal Ash Spill
- Illinois Transport Company Settles Fatal Crash Suit For $2.7 Million
- Settlement For Family Of College Student Killed In Crash After Alabama National Championship Game
- Macy’s Fined $1 Million For Decapitation Of Warehouse Employee
- Texas Plastics Plant Fined $174,000 For Safety And Health Violations
- OSHA Says Safety Violation Continue At Oklahoma Oil Refinery
- Company Cited In Fatal West Virginia Cell Tower Collapse
- New Safety Directive Issued By OSHA On Communication Tower Work
- $27 Million Verdict Returned In Texas Against McDonald’s
- hello just want you a up date mt email change to
email@example.com can you...
- Was just wondering if you can still be in this lawsuit. I was a manager for 8 yr...
- I keep reading that the pratice of steering is illegal and whole-heartidly suppo...
- Hello William, thank you for your question. We are not aware of any pending liti...
- Has litigation commenced as a result of this recall?...
- Sorry I meant to say settlement papers, but I did speak to someone in the Lawyer...
- I just spoke to someone and was told it will be another month or two before I wi...
- 2005 F150 super cab. Driver side regulator just broke. Dealer wants $200 just fo...
Recent Settlements - Feb 9, 2012 7:09 - 0 Comments
More In Recent Settlements
- A Further Update On The AWP Litigation
- Firm Reaches Settlement In Fort McClellan Radio Tower Collapse Case
- Firm Reaches Settlement In Sikorsky Helicopter Crash
- The Philadelphia Story
- St. Croix, Virgin Islands Settlement
Product Liability - Sep 4, 2014 13:13 - 0 Comments
More In Product Liability
- More Problems With Goodyear RV Tires
- NHTSA Offers Online Vehicle Recall Check
- Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Mazda For Engine Valve Defect
- GM Sued For Alleged Antifreeze Defect In Chevy Cruze Models
- Settlement By Kia And Hyundai In Fuel Efficiency MDL Is Approved
Recalls Update - Sep 4, 2014 11:03 - 0 Comments
More In Recalls Update
- USDA Recalls 7.5 Tons Of Applegate Frozen Chicken Nuggets
- J&J Unit Recalls Hysterectomy Device Over Cancer Fears
- Samson International Recalls Bar Stool Due To Fall Hazard
- Bexco Recalls Franklin & Ben Mason 4-in-1 Convertible Cribs Due To Fall And Entrapment Hazards
- Ace Bayou Bean Bag Chairs Recalled Because Of Suffocation And Choking Hazards