lawstud

MauriceReeves

Just save your energy for a battle you might be able to sway people on. (No, this does not include discussions of receipt-checking or showing ID to use a credit card). Trust me, you'll be happier.

Beerad

@nequam: Would corporations even be able to abuse it if the arbitrators were actually fair?

Rectilinear Propagation

Perhaps you should have that looked at. Walking into a supposedly "unbiased" arbitration where the arbitor knows that a judgement against the corporation would result in no further work would give me something worse. AAA is generating this perception themselves by letting the corporations use arbitration to avoid the consequences of their behavior. Sell a defective or dangerous product? No problem, as long as the consumer can't sue you.

starrion

nequam

john42

The AAA is an organization that allows arbitration to happen between parties who agree to arbitrate. If a corporation misuses arbitration in the consumer context, it is the corporation's fault, not AAA's.

nequam

pigeonpenelope

[i54.photobucket.com]

Papa Midnight

But yeah, I still voted for the other guy.

muddgirl

deadlizard

So is Facebook. It's selling advertisers space to make more money. In other words, it's acting optimally.

karan1003

Rectilinear Propagation

cyclade

chilled

rewinditback

rewinditback

Bladefist

fluiddruid

spinachdip

Let's not forgot the rape situation with Halliburton subsidiary KBR and their victims.

DeafChick

thesilentnight

Buran

Look, I'm saving all this money with low, low premiums, but if I ever NEED the insurance, it will be practically useless to me.

Are the marginal savings to everyone 'worth it' by comparison to the one individual whose life is ruined by the results of arbitration?

ludwigk

There it is. I don't automatically think that everything that's good for a business is necessarily bad for a consumer, but mandatory arbitration is. This site is admittedly biased toward the consumer, and arbitration is bad for consumers, despite your assertions to the contrary, so how would you expect the commenters to react?

Regardless of the percentage of times that an arbitrator finds against a consumer, the arbitration process is unsuited for consumer transactions. Off the top of my head, here's why: Arbitration is often more expensive than a lawsuit when you factor in the costs of paying an arbitrator (as opposed to a judge or jury, who are paid by taxpayers or constrained by law to appear), traveling to an inconvenient venue (such as the company's headquarters or place of incorporation), and reduced judgment. Arbitration's supporters bill it as being quicker and more efficient, but this is in exchange for waiving valuable legal rights, such as the right to full (or even any) discovery, the right to form a class for a class action (clearly a pro-business, anti-consumer provision), and the right to appeal a judgment. This is almost always coupled with a secretive, unrecorded arbitration hearing (which may benefit a consumer who is revealing private or embarrassing information, but seems more likely to shield companies with defective products from having people find out about the defects). And of course, even if none of this were true and arbitration was a completely fair, open, and wonderful alternative to litigation, it's still bad that companies force consumers to agree to arbitrate when they do business (and I don't buy the argument that you're not being forced to get a cellphone, car, etc. Arbitration clauses appear in employment applications and job contracts, property leases, and insurance and bank agreements).

I'd be happy to provide cites for the following, although a little time spent tooling around Lexis would do just as well.

Alex Chasick

IrisMR

Angryrider

However, I must agree that this is a one sided match.

Rectilinear Propagation

sleze69

Facebook is a free service that gets your information. Disingenuous, sure. But I have a hard time singling them out from thousands upon thousands of other sites that do just the same, and you have no obligation to go to any of them.

AceKicker

Orv

It makes me think of casinos, the house edge is only like 2%, but that's enough to make millions.

AaronZ

Steve Trachsel, Ace

In the kinds of disputes the AAA mediates, it's not enough for justice to be done; it must be seen to be done as well, and the AAA undermines that. For all of its faults (and they are many), the American justice system at least offers some kind of transparency, openness and evenhandedness.

Facebook, on the other hand, is not only a frivolous product with lots of competition, it's also free.

No question which company is more evil.

Corydon

To answer though, I do not work for an arbitrator, never have, and dont know anyone who does. I did put MBA into my contracts because it benefits me as a business owner and Ive been badly burned by a frivolous lawsuit. Until we have loser-pay laws in this country it is the only thing that prevents people from using the court system from bullying small businesses into settlements.

Steve Trachsel, Ace

[consumerist.com]

Do a search for arbitration on the Consumerist. Arbitration might be good for consumers - the problem is mandatory, binding arbitration. This is not at all good for consumers.

fluiddruid

I'd say shill, but then she'd (he'd?) be a submarine-shill because the poster in question has been here longer than I.

Jaysyn was banned for: http://consumerist.com/5032912/the-subprime-meltdown-will-be-nothing-compared-to-the-prime-meltdown#c7042646

Steve Trachsel, Ace

Do you work for or have ever worked for an arbitrator or a company that used arbitration often?

Jaysyn was banned for: http://consumerist.com/5032912/the-subprime-meltdown-will-be-nothing-compared-to-the-prime-meltdown#c7042646

Buran

Source, citing Michael Delikat & Morris M. Kleiner, An Empirical Study of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Where Do Plaintiffs Better Vindicate Their Rights?, 58 DISPUTE RESOLUTION JOURNAL 56, 57-58 (2004); and Lewis L. Maltby, Private Justice: Employment Arbitration and Civil Rights, 30 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 29, 45-48 (1998).

California data shows that when consumers bring arbitration claims against businesses, the consumers prevail in 65.5% of cases that reach a decision. To compare, buyer plaintiffs litigating contract claims in the 75 largest American counties prevailed 61.5% of the time overall, and 60.9% of the time in cases decided by bench trials. When businesses bring arbitration claims against California consumers, the businesses prevail in 77.7% of cases that reach a decision. To compare, seller plaintiffs litigating contract cases in the largest 75 counties prevail 76.8% of the time overall and 78.9% of the time in cases decided by bench trial.

These results show that the win rates for consumers and businesses bringing claims in arbitration are within just a few percentage points - and, sometimes, just fractions of a percentage point - of the win rates of individuals and businesses bringing contract claims in court.

Steve Trachsel, Ace

[consumerist.com]

fluiddruid

starrion

1 - You are denied access to the legal system.
2 - Your dispute is decided by someone who finds against consumers 95% of the time.
3 - Fair arbitrators are worked out of the business by companies who will hire people who find for them most often.
4 - Arbitration is generally mandatory based on your contract, and so many companies require this that it's impossible to avoid (particularly in credit cards and financial services).

So, explain to me... how is this "good for consumers"?

fluiddruid

qwickone

Oh, and the rulings favor consumers almost exactly at the same percentage as regular court decisions.

Steve Trachsel, Ace

qwickone

aphex242

AAA laughs at their ensuing outrage, shrugs and says, "Mediate this, lackey." They're absurdly biased in favor of those that pay their bills: abusive companies. No contest.

Trai_Dep

Steve Trachsel, Ace

Nighthawke

Bladefist

ARP

bonzombiekitty