It is increasingly common to find consumer contracts (the things you agree to when you buy stuff or services, like a rental car, Netflix subscription, or anything that contains a written warranty) containing “arbitration clauses.” They’re usually in capital letters or bold print, most often buried many clauses deep in the contract, and say something to the effect of this:
…IN THE EVENT A DISPUTE SHALL ARISE BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTRACT, IT IS HEREBY AGREED THAT THE DISPUTE SHALL BE REFERRED FOR BINDING ARBITRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT. THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION SHALL BE FINAL AND BINDING AND JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED THEREON…
What this language means is that if you and the company have a dispute, you both agree that you won’t take it to court, but will instead hire a “neutral” “arbitrator” to resolve the issue. The arbitrator can award any amount of money he or she sees fit, based upon the contract and the law.
Here’s why this sucks for the consumer:
- Your right to proceed class action is cancelled. A “class action” is a lawsuit where lots of people claim that a company wronged them in the same way. Generally, it is for small amounts (maybe only a few dollars) that wouldn’t make sense for 1 person to waste their time going to court for, but if there are 10,000 people just like you and you can all sue in one joint lawsuit, the company can be held accountable. You generally can’t “contract away” the right to proceed as a class under most states’ laws, but by requiring arbitration, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) takes over the terms of dispute resolution, and the FAA allows for class rights to be signed away. You should therefore take an arbitration clause as a sign that the company is afraid that it has, or may, piss off a large consumer base, and wants to protect itself from any damages that can come from that. It’s a bad sign.
- Your right to an appeal is cancelled. An arbitrator’s award, in general, cannot be appealed. Did your arbitrator turn out to be biased, or literally fall asleep during proceedings? Too bad, according to the FAA. With exceptions too narrow to be worth pursuing, a court cannot overturn an arbitrator’s award, no matter how unfair.
- Your right to a cheap, quick resolution of small claims might be cancelled. Some arbitration clauses allow small claims to be heard by a small claims court — and some arbitrators refuse to hear cases based on contracts without such an allowance. This is a good thing: small claims can generally be resolved in less than 3 court appearances, for nominal court fees, without the need for an attorney, and within a few months. But, some arbitration clauses do not allow for this, and therefore even a claim for $5 comes with a hefty arbitration fee and longer, and more difficult, proceedings than in small claims court. The text of the arbitration clause will tell you if you can resort to a small claims court, but even this is not guaranteed, as some states will allow any party in small claims court to move a case to a regular civil court, at which point the company can argue that arbitration is now required. (Not the first time I’ve written about Citibank being sneaky and abusive!)
- No case law is created. “Case law” is the decisions of courts in the past that influence decisions of courts in the future. For courts of the same jurisdiction and same level or lower, a decision on an issue is usually binding. For example, if the U.S. Supreme Court decides that TSA body scanners are unconstitutional and Plaintiff X, who was forced to go through one, gets $100 in damages, every other court in the country must follow suit and award similar damages to anyone who presents a similar case. When an arbitrator makes a ruling, it may or may not be public, but either way, it is binding on no one. Therefore, if the company has wronged 10 people in the same way, but has an arbitration agreement, even if the 1st to arbitrate wins, people 2 – 10 still need to argue the issue anew.
- Oh, you thought the arbitrator was neutral? There’s a pretty big conflict of interest here. The companies are the ones including arbitration agreements in their contracts and sending work to the arbitrators. If one of the two parties sends all the work and the other does not, where does loyalty lie? Even if an individual arbitrator is conscientious enough to remain neutral, what effect does the conflict of interest have on the rules that the arbitrator has to follow?
For balance, I’ll note that arbitration can have some benefits for the consumer. For example, if the claim is for a large amount of money, it will be a shorter “trial,” and therefore you’ll be paying your attorneys less money. Arbitrators are also more likely to award attorney’s fees to you if you win. Also, in non-consumer contracts, you may sometime have an edge. A friend of mine involved in an employment contract dispute against a major corporation recently lamented to me that the attorney’s fees to take the major corporation — which could afford to prolong litigation to gain an advantage — may be unsustainable, forcing this friend to consider settlements beneath what his or her claim was worth. But in consumer contracts, the overall balance is clearly in favor of the company (which, of course, is why they put the clause in there in the first place).
But what can you really do about it? Well, to start, many arbitration clauses have an “opt-out” option, whereby you notify the company that you disagree, and the clause no longer applies. If this is an option in your contract, follow the instructions carefully to make an effective opt-out (before the TSA bans those opt-outs too :)). If it doesn’t, you can try negotiating the contract, even if the company is large. If it’s a paper contract, you may “negotiate” simply by crossing out the provision and initialing the change before signing. You’d be shocked as to how many times I’ve crossed out arbitration agreements and simply said, “I don’t arbitrate,” and they’ve said “Um, ok I guess.” If all else fails, tell them you’re heading to a competitor. Lost sales are, in the end, the greatest motivator to companies to create fair agreements with their customers.
Are there class actions where the plaintiffs actually made money? I’ve received a couple notifications of settlements of a few dollars in ever bother to even try to collect. It seems like the attorneys are the only ones making money.
There are indeed issues with the class action system, and in my opinion, first and foremost are the high attorneys’ fees that are typical. In an ideal world, only minimal portions of the settlements would go to the attorneys, but regardless of whether the settlement class gets the money or the attorneys get the money, the company is dissuaded from negative conduct, which is, IMO, the most important part for claims of very small amounts per plaintiff.
I have a different take on how to fight the arbitration issue. By using it. There are only two arbitration firms that currently take consumer cases, which are “AAA” or “JAMS”. AAA is the cheapest option at $3600 minimum to START an arbitration claim. And that cost is for the COMPANY to bear. The consumer is capped at $200 (or $250 in JAMS). Many arbitration clauses will state that the company will pay for the consumer’s filing fee, which means the consumer pays $0 and the company will pay $3800 to get started. If more than one hearing is needed, that is another $1250 in AAA and up to $5,000 in JAMS. Since nearly EVERYTHING – including phone apps, gift cards – and literally everything a consumer goes is governed by an arbitration clause, any time a consumer has a problem, they should file an arbitration claim.
I have done this many times with my cell phone service, my cable company, my credit cards and many other companies where issues arise. It can be anything from a billing error to service issues to improper documentation. ANY issue is an arbitrateable issues according to the contract. Do you think a cell phone company may start to think twice about having an arbitration clause if everyone who had a problem with their service filed an arbitration claim costing them $3800 each time to address? They force you into the clause, so I say USE it to your advantage. Not only are you forcing them to pay up for their own clause they want to hide behind, but you also get much easier resolution. I never have to sit on hold for hours or get transferred to multiple unhelpful people with my problems. I send off a letter and a few days later someone calls ME with a resolution to the problem. It is in their benefit to fix the issue the first time and quickly, because they know if we proceed to an arbitration hearing, it will cost them even more. The rules of both AAA and JAMS say that the consumer has the right to an in-person hearing located in their own home town. The business will bear the expense of traveling to the hearing AND paying for the arbitrator to travel as well. The risk and cost to the consumer is usually $0, but at worse, a consumer may pay $250 – which could be gotten back in a settlement agreement later. In my dozen or so arbitration cases, I have never paid more than $50 and of those times, I have gotten that and more back in a settlement.
So I say make them USE the arbitration agreements that they force upon you! Use it for small things that it clearly covers, but that they never intend to use it for. They can’t have it both ways. Either we arbitrate or we don’t. Do not let them get away with picking arbitration only for the “big” cases when it only benefits them.
The Privatization of Terrorism Blacklists Will Damage Innocent Lives:
The highly influential World-Check database has also listed major charities, activists, and mainstream religious institutions under its category of “terrorism”. Dozens of terror profiles in the database owned by Thomson Reuters seen by VICE News include:
•Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director, Nihad Awad, one of a select group of American Muslim leaders invited to join former US President George W. Bush in a press conference condemning the 9/11 attacks. CAIR, the recipient of multiple leadership awards, is also terror-listed by World-Check.
•Liberal Democrat politician Maajid Nawaz, who founded counter-extremism think tank Quilliam and has advised successive British prime ministers.
•Former World Bank and Bank of England advisor Mohamed Iqbal Asaria, who was given a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) award in the 2005 Queen’s Honours List for services to international development.
POLICE STATE WARNING: Connecticut Sued Over Illegal Ebola Quarantine (Home Confinement):
A dozen people who traveled to Africa during the 2014 Ebola outbreak claim in a federal class action that Connecticut wrongfully confined them to their homes for three weeks.
Distinguishing the quarantine from thought-out public health guidelines, the plaintiffs say their ordeal was borne from “sensationalist news accounts” and “a close gubernatorial race.”
Attorneys say West Haven police stationed themselves outside the apartment round the clock. In one instance, officers allegedly told the family that they could not pay for a pizza delivery with paper money because it was contaminated.
The family says their children were treated them like criminals, having to endure police guards shining lights on them.
Connecticut’s method of announcing the quarantine is under scrutiny as well. The complaint says health officials informed the family about the quarantine over the phone, two days after questioning them at JFK airport, and never served any written information about the quarantine.
Domestic terrorists and watch-listed individuals: Creating the false narrative
Innocent Americans targeted for surveillance and harassment via DHS and civilian hirees, which include but are not limited to ex-cons, criminals, illegal immigrants, neighbors, store and restaurant owners/employees, etc. InfraGard, the FBI’s “civilian” branch also most likely plays a role in assisting with “monitoring” watch-listed individuals on a domestic basis.
Activists, LGBT supporters, out-of-the-box thinkers, military veterans, retired law enforcement personnel with IED disposal experience, Black Lives Matter participants, PETA and Greenpeace members, investigative journalists, academics, conservatives, Tea Party members, Rand Paul supporters, Oath Keepers, “Sovereign Citizens,” whistle-blowers, Pro-Lifers, Americans who are married to foreign-born individuals, Americans who have a bank account or property in a foreign country, firearm owners, and NRA members are all “potential domestic threats.”