Why mandatory binding arbitration is bad for consumers

May 7, 2009 by Todd Murray · 2 Comments 

Many consumer contracts, including credit cards, contain mandatory binding arbitration clauses buried in the fine print of the terms and conditions. The clauses are very broad and encompass virtually any dispute between the consumer and the company. Increasingly, creditors are invoking mandatory binding arbitration clauses to collect debts. Rather than sue consumers and pursue a court judgment, credit card companies are forcing consumers into arbitration.

Arbitration is a dispute resolution process that, according to supporters, produces a resolution in less time and for less money than litigating a case in court. Sounds great, right? But unlike a judge, who is publicly elected and accountable, an arbitrator is chosen by a private arbitration company. The arbitrator is not required to issue a written decision, so the parties rarely get an explanation about the arbitrator’s ruling. And unlike a court ruling, arbitration rulings are final and not subject to appeal. The arbitration clause usually mandates what arbitration company will hear any disputes. Predictably, creditors choose arbitration companies that pander to their interests. Since credit card companies provide the arbitration companies with thousands of cases, which generate huge sums of money for the arbitration companies, its not surprising that they rule against consumers the overwhelming majority of the time. There are even stories of arbitrators being blacklisted by arbitration companies for ruling in favor of a consumer. 

Arbitration may indeed resolve a consumer dispute faster and cheaper than a court proceeding. But the arbitrator is chosen by your opponent, rules in favor of your opponent the vast majority of the time, is not required to explain his decision, and his decision cannot be appealed. Sounds like kangaroo court to me.

If a credit card company is forcing you to arbitration or is trying to confirm an arbitration award against you, please contact me immediately to discuss your case.

(photo: Tasumi1968)

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • NewsVine

About Todd Murray
I'm a consumer rights lawyer in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I sue debt collectors that harass and abuse people, defend debt collection lawsuits, and sue repossession companies that wrongfully repossess cars and trucks.

Comments

2 Responses to “Why mandatory binding arbitration is bad for consumers”

    Trackbacks

    Check out what others are saying about this post...
    1. [...] written in the past about how forced arbitration is bad for consumers in the context of debt collection. Virtually all [...]

    2. [...] NAF has long been the bane of consumer advocates because of a suspected bias against consumers. The forum has denied these allegations and [...]



    Please Share Your Thoughts

    I welcome your comments, but please don't post questions about your personal legal problem in this public forum. Rather than posting your question here, I recommend discussing your situation privately with a lawyer of your choice. If you live in Minnesota, feel free to use the contact form in the upper right corner of this page to request an initial consulation with me. To protect your privacy, I will delete all comments that involve a personal legal problem.