SCOTUS: Binding Arbitration is Binding.

[SunnyD]

Uh oh... consumer protection against corporations goes bye-bye.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court's decision. In his majority opinion, Justice Scalia argued that the purpose of the FAA was designed to promote arbitration over more costly and lengthy litigation. Quoting an earlier ruling by the court, Scalia explained that "[a] prime objective of an agreement to arbitrate is to achieve ‘streamlined proceedings and expeditious results,'" and that requiring the class-action litigation to proceed would be at odds with the intent of the FAA and the benefits that arbitration agreements ostensibly provide.

No longer may states allow class action suits when a contract mandates arbitration. We all of course know that arbitration rules 90%+ of the time for the corporations that line their pockets. Huge blow to consumer rights.

 

[Throckmorton]

How is this any different from allowing binding Sharia Law?

 

[Infohawk]

Arbitration is pretty lame. If our courts are so expensive and inefficient we need to remedy that.

 

[Throckmorton]

Arbitration is pretty lame. If our courts are so expensive and inefficient we need to remedy that.

It's not about cost. It's about taking away your rights. Just like Sharia Law.

 

[Patranus]

So a contract you enter into binds you to arbitration and after the fact you want out of that binding arbitration?

No longer may states allow class action suits when a contract mandates arbitration. We all of course know that arbitration rules 90%+ of the time for the corporations that line their pockets. Huge blow to consumer rights.

LOL - You liberals are so funny.

If you don't want binding arbitration then don't enter into the contract.

 

[SunnyD]

So a contract you enter into binds you to arbitration and after the fact you want out of that binding arbitration?

LOL - You liberals are so funny.

If you don't want binding arbitration then don't enter into the contract.

That's funny, considering for certain essential services you have absolutely no choice other than entering into a contract.

Worse yet, contracts are meant to be negotiated. Corporations don't give you the option of negotiation. Take it or leave it. Where there's zero competitive incentive, the consumer gets screwed.

 

[Brainonska511]

Arbitration is pretty lame. If our courts are so expensive and inefficient we need to remedy that.

It isn't about cost. Think about this quote:

But the most fundamental problem, he said, was that minor frauds like the one asserted here by the California couple will not be remedied.
“What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?” he asked. Quoting from a decision in another case, he answered his own question. “Only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/business/28bizcourt.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

 

[PeshakJang]

Corporations don't give you the option of negotiation. Take it or leave it.

That's the negotiation. You don't want their service? Don't take it.

Otherwise, please list the times when a corporation forced you to enter into a contract.

Are liberals really this dumb?

 

[Patranus]

That's the negotiation. You don't want their service? Don't take it.

Otherwise, please list the times when a corporation forced you to enter into a contract.

Are liberals really this dumb?

See, the problem is you are looking at it like a sane person.

In the mind of the liberal, they are entitled to the service.

 

[Throckmorton]

So a contract you enter into binds you to arbitration and after the fact you want out of that binding arbitration?



LOL - You liberals are so funny.

If you don't want binding arbitration then don't enter into the contract.

If you don't want Sharia Law in America, then don't be a Muslim

 

[SunnyD]

That's the negotiation. You don't want their service? Don't take it.

Otherwise, please list the times when a corporation forced you to enter into a contract.

Are liberals really this dumb?

Good to see you took my post as two disjoint topics.

Let's see... do I want electricity or running water for my house? My local utility companies have arbitration clauses for disputes. Do I have any alternative to the local utility companies? No. There are several essential services out there people use that have absolutely no alternative to other than entering into a contract unreasonably skewed towards the corporation. Get your head out of your jaded little corporate ass and take a look at the world around you for once. There's more out there than just "Conservative versus Liberal", all it takes is a little common sense to recognize it.

 

[Atreus21]

If you don't want Sharia Law in America, then don't be a Muslim

To the extent that Sharia Law is followed by and bound to willing adherents, what argument do we have against it?

That it's brutal? Yes. So don't enter into an agreement with it.

 

[Atreus21]

Good to see you took my post as two disjoint topics.

Let's see... do I want electricity or running water for my house? My local utility companies have arbitration clauses for disputes. Do I have any alternative to the local utility companies? No. There are several essential services out there people use that have absolutely no alternative to other than entering into a contract unreasonably skewed towards the corporation. Get your head out of your jaded little corporate ass and take a look at the world around you for once. There's more out there than just "Conservative versus Liberal", all it takes is a little common sense to recognize it.

I might remind you that utility companies tend to be government-regulated monopolies*, and that's why you have little or no choice in the matter.

Although I think some states (Texas I think?) are experimenting with privatizing it.

*At least, that's my experience. Would welcome proof to the contrary.

 

[Anarchist420]

This is probably the worst court in history for States' rights.

 

[Kadarin]

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court's decision. In his majority opinion, Justice Scalia argued that the purpose of the FAA was designed to promote arbitration over more costly and lengthy litigation. Quoting an earlier ruling by the court, Scalia explained that "[a] prime objective of an agreement to arbitrate is to achieve ‘streamlined proceedings and expeditious results,'" and that requiring the class-action litigation to proceed would be at odds with the intent of the FAA and the benefits that arbitration agreements ostensibly provide.

Well, having arbitration always side in favor of the corporation is certainly more efficient than allowing those pesky consumers to have rights.

 

[Brainonska511]

Well, having arbitration always side in favor of the corporation is certainly more efficient than allowing those pesky consumers to have rights.

Yeah. Rule to much in favor of consumers, your job as an arbitrator or your company's position as X firm's go-to-arbitration unit could be in jeopardy.

 

[Kadarin]

Yeah. Rule to much in favor of consumers, your job as an arbitrator or your company's position as X firm's go-to-arbitration unit could be in jeopardy.

Not to mention lost profits for the corporation due to actually having to litigate abuses rather than sweep them under the rug. Some executive's quarterly bonus might be impacted, the horror!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Arbitration is pretty lame. If our courts are so expensive and inefficient we need to remedy that.

I agree. Arbitration is fine when the contract for arbitration is not a one-sided adhesion contract but a negotiated contract between two equals. By allowing adhesion contract arbitration like that, Congress has essentially closed the courts to the general public.

 

[fskimospy]

I might remind you that utility companies tend to be government-regulated monopolies*, and that's why you have little or no choice in the matter.

Although I think some states (Texas I think?) are experimenting with privatizing it.

*At least, that's my experience. Would welcome proof to the contrary.

Plenty of state have private utility companies, and many of those still use mandatory binding arbitration. In general, corporations would be fools not to put it in the contract as it is insanely advantageous to them to do so.

I'm all for voluntary agreements to binding arbitration, but the practice of forcing consumers to sign away their rights in order to get basic services is an end run around our legal system that shouldn't be tolerated.

 

[jonks]

Good to see you took my post as two disjoint topics.

Let's see... do I want electricity or running water for my house? My local utility companies have arbitration clauses for disputes. Do I have any alternative to the local utility companies? No. There are several essential services out there people use that have absolutely no alternative to other than entering into a contract unreasonably skewed towards the corporation. Get your head out of your jaded little corporate ass and take a look at the world around you for once. There's more out there than just "Conservative versus Liberal", all it takes is a little common sense to recognize it.

And if all cell phone companies include such clauses? Just use smoke signals. Duh.

Why do (certain short sighted) consevatives think everything is black and white? If you're not forced at gunpoint to sign a contract then according to them you have plenty of choices. Just live without a cell phone and use pay phones when you find them. Easy peezy.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Congress has essentially closed the courts to the general public.

I agree. This is a sad day in American governance. Rights for Corporations, by Corporations. Screw the private citizen.

 

[Fern]

Uh oh... consumer protection against corporations goes bye-bye.



No longer may states allow class action suits when a contract mandates arbitration. We all of course know that arbitration rules 90%+ of the time for the corporations that line their pockets. Huge blow to consumer rights.

No Class Action Suits are a blow to consumer rights?

Fook. Class action suits are BS, just a way for lawyers to scam the heck out of people/companies. In every one I've ever seen the consumers get something like a coupon for their next purchase from the company and lawyers get $millions. Utter BS, IMO.

Otherwise, I don't really know what effect this ruling may have, or if I support it or oppose it.

Fern

 

[Atreus21]

Plenty of state have private utility companies, and many of those still use mandatory binding arbitration. In general, corporations would be fools not to put it in the contract as it is insanely advantageous to them to do so.

I'm all for voluntary agreements to binding arbitration, but the practice of forcing consumers to sign away their rights in order to get basic services is an end run around our legal system that shouldn't be tolerated.

Not a rhetorical question; I honestly don't know: What rights are they signing away? I don't remember any contracts with the water or power company in New Orleans.

 

[Fern]

Plenty of state have private utility companies, and many of those still use mandatory binding arbitration. In general, corporations would be fools not to put it in the contract as it is insanely advantageous to them to do so.

I'm all for voluntary agreements to binding arbitration, but the practice of forcing consumers to sign away their rights in order to get basic services is an end run around our legal system that shouldn't be tolerated.

I haven't read the case (and don't intend to), but am wondering if this the problem many here claim could Congress fix it with legislation. (This doesn't strike me as a Constitutional issue, neccesarily)

What do you think?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Not a rhetorical question; I honestly don't know: What rights are they signing away? I don't remember any contracts with the water or power company in New Orleans.

The right to take dispute to court, instead you go to an arbitrator.

The details of course vary from contract to contract, but in many of the cases the site of arbitration is selected at the company's convenience (ie: doesn't even have to be in the state you live in, could be across the country), there are no rules of discovery so it's extremely difficult for the consumer to gather evidence, you have no recourse from an adverse judgment, etc. I mean there's a reason why results from binding arbitration favor corporations far more often than actual litigation.