Arbitration Tips-N-Tools (TNT): Round 19

In this round of Arbitration Tips-N-Tools, Professor Amy Schmitz asks some of the leading arbitration practitioners about the biggest pitfalls of consumer arbitration in its current state, especially in a digital world, and faced with the complexities of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Round 19: What do you see as the biggest pitfalls of consumer arbitration in its current state – list your top 3?

Responses:

A) Steven G. Shapiro

  1. Consumers often don’t know that they are subject to arbitration, including time requirements and process to file complaints and to respond to inquiries.
  2. Consumers often waive their right to participate in class actions.
  3. Consumers often have better access to aid and advice for court proceedings and arbitration may be more mysterious.

B) Imre Szalai

  1. Lack of meaningful consent, lack of meaningful consent, lack of meaningful consent!
  2. Fewer procedural protections than in court, such as discovery rights or class procedures.
  3. Confidentiality, which may make it more difficult to discover widespread wrongdoing (e.g., Wells Fargo churning scandal).

C) Erin Archerd

  1. Consumers have no idea they are giving up their right to sue.  I see this issue as having at least two parts: first, consumers don’t bother to read their contracts in the first place so even if parties write the clearest, cleanest, most obvious ALL CAPS and BOLD clause laying out the arbitration terms, the consumer won’t have read it.  Second, few arbitration agreements make their scope clear.
  2. Consumers aren’t given the option to opt out and if they are given one, it is onerous.  In an age when most communication happens online, you still see opt-outs that require sending paper mail, to a PO Box, by a certain date of receipt.  It’s cumbersome and archaic.
  3. Repeat players make it hard for to arbitral organizations to maintain the appearance of neutrality.  Even if they are trying to be neutral, hearing all of the consumer claims for Company X will make any organizing appear to be in Company X’s pocket.  Not sure if more reporting or transparency would change this.
author

Steven Shapiro

Steven Shapiro teaches, writes, and speaks on topics in complex hospitality issues and construction law at the American University, Washington College of Law, blending his career in law firm practice, construction engineering, and academics. Recognized for innovation in bringing the realities and economics of commercial practice into the classroom and…

author

Imre Szalai

Professor Szalai graduated from Yale University, double majoring in Economics and Classical Civilizations, and he received his law degree from Columbia University, where he was named a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. After graduating from law school, Professor Szalai practiced antitrust law in New York City, and then he practiced complex…

author

Erin Archerd

Erin Archerd joined the Detroit Mercy Law faculty in Fall 2015. Prior to becoming a professor, she was an associate in the San Francisco office of Covington & Burling LLP, where she focused on corporate transactions, primarily in the information technology and biotechnology sectors, as well as preparing an amicus…

author

Amy Schmitz

Professor Amy Schmitz is the John Deaver Drinko-Baker & Hostetler Chair in Law at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. From 2016-2021 Professor Schmitz was the Elwood L. Thomas Missouri Endowed Professor of Law at the University of Missouri School of Law and the Center for Dispute Resolution.…

Featured Arbitrators

ad
View all

Read these next

Category

Fifth Circuit: FAA Section 1 Does Not Exempt Local Delivery Drivers

This article first appeared on the Securities Arbitration Alert Blog, here. Houston area delivery drivers who generally did not cross state lines were not of the class of workers exempt...

By George Friedman
Category

An Argument Against Using the Supreme Court Rules in UMP Arbitrations

The purpose of this exercise is to impart to the reader (the parties and their counsel) the advantage of employing all of the benefits of the new Arbitration Act, SBC...

By Kenneth Glasner
Category

Unanimous SCOTUS Decides Sundance: No Prejudice Requirement to Prove Waiver of Arbitration Rights

The Supreme Court has decided Morgan v. Sundance Inc., No. 21-328, ruling unanimously that there is no prejudice requirement under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) for a court to find a waiver of...

By George Friedman

Find an Arbitrator

X
X
X