Javascript must be enabled to continue!
The Mass Arbitration Illusion
View through CrossRef
Mass arbitration has emerged as the latest battleground in the ongoing tug-of-war between corporations and their consumers and employees regarding binding mandatory arbitration clauses. After businesses succeeded in shielding themselves from liability by using mandatory arbitration clauses to ban class actions, plaintiffs struck back. By filing large numbers of individual arbitrations against a corporate defendant all at once, they have increased their leverage and induced alarmed companies to come to the settlement table. By and large, corporate defendants like mandatory arbitration, but do not like mass arbitration. Recently, defendants have discovered a weapon that allows them to continue to force consumers and employees into arbitration, but to maintain for themselves an escape hatch for mass arbitrations that they would prefer to defend in court. Simply put, they violate the arbitration provider's rules. This can take several forms, but most commonly, defendants have refused to pay their share of arbitration fees, or they have refused to register their arbitration clause with the arbitration provider. When that happens, the arbitration provider closes the case, and so the plaintiffs no longer can proceed in arbitration, giving the non-complying defendants exactly what they want. Although refusal to follow arbitration provider rules may look like gamesmanship, three recent circuit court decisions have blessed this practice. As a result, even though plaintiffs are required to arbitrate all disputes, defendants are able to unilaterally decide whether a case will proceed in court or in arbitration. This essay argues that allowing defendants to unilaterally back out of arbitration by refusing to comply with arbitration provider rules is unfairly one-sided, imposes significant costs on plaintiffs, and runs contrary to the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act, which was adopted to prevent parties from strategically avoiding arbitration when they thought they would do better in court.
Title: The Mass Arbitration Illusion
Description:
Mass arbitration has emerged as the latest battleground in the ongoing tug-of-war between corporations and their consumers and employees regarding binding mandatory arbitration clauses.
After businesses succeeded in shielding themselves from liability by using mandatory arbitration clauses to ban class actions, plaintiffs struck back.
By filing large numbers of individual arbitrations against a corporate defendant all at once, they have increased their leverage and induced alarmed companies to come to the settlement table.
By and large, corporate defendants like mandatory arbitration, but do not like mass arbitration.
Recently, defendants have discovered a weapon that allows them to continue to force consumers and employees into arbitration, but to maintain for themselves an escape hatch for mass arbitrations that they would prefer to defend in court.
Simply put, they violate the arbitration provider's rules.
This can take several forms, but most commonly, defendants have refused to pay their share of arbitration fees, or they have refused to register their arbitration clause with the arbitration provider.
When that happens, the arbitration provider closes the case, and so the plaintiffs no longer can proceed in arbitration, giving the non-complying defendants exactly what they want.
Although refusal to follow arbitration provider rules may look like gamesmanship, three recent circuit court decisions have blessed this practice.
As a result, even though plaintiffs are required to arbitrate all disputes, defendants are able to unilaterally decide whether a case will proceed in court or in arbitration.
This essay argues that allowing defendants to unilaterally back out of arbitration by refusing to comply with arbitration provider rules is unfairly one-sided, imposes significant costs on plaintiffs, and runs contrary to the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act, which was adopted to prevent parties from strategically avoiding arbitration when they thought they would do better in court.
Related Results
International Investment Arbitration
International Investment Arbitration
International investment arbitration is heterogeneous. At its core, it represents the settlement of international investment disputes between foreign investors and host States by a...
The genesis of the concept of international commercial arbitration
The genesis of the concept of international commercial arbitration
This article is dedicated to the study and disclosure of the legal essence of international commercial arbitration as a legal phenomenon representing an alternative method of resol...
Offensive Arbitration
Offensive Arbitration
The standard critique of binding arbitration for consumer and employment disputes is that arbitration favors defendants. Arbitration often has reduced discovery, shortened statutes...
The Arbitration Clause as Super Contract
The Arbitration Clause as Super Contract
It is widely acknowledged that the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act was to place arbitration clauses on “equal footing” with other contracts. Nonetheless, federal and state c...
Building a Global International Arbitration Center of China: Independence, Internationalism and Immunity
Building a Global International Arbitration Center of China: Independence, Internationalism and Immunity
This paper explores contemporary issues and provides insights into arbitration as practiced in China’s cross border business and commercial domains. It employs a qualitative method...
Arbitration Effect
Arbitration Effect
Arbitration is changing American law and its justice system. Critics argue that arbitration leads to claim suppression. Proponents contend that it is cheaper and less formal. These...
The Black Mass as Play: Dennis Wheatley's The Devil Rides Out
The Black Mass as Play: Dennis Wheatley's The Devil Rides Out
Literature—at least serious literature—is something that we work at. This is especially true within the academy. Literature departments are places where workers labour over texts c...
THE IMPORTANCE OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IN WRITING: INTERNATIONAL, INDONESIA, AND NEW ZEALAND
THE IMPORTANCE OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IN WRITING: INTERNATIONAL, INDONESIA, AND NEW ZEALAND
International commercial arbitration has been one of the popular means to solve a dispute, including in Indonesia and New Zealand. In the event the cross-border commercial parties ...

