Oposition to mandatory arbitration grows
The Shreveport Times has an article about a local man's lobbying efforts in support of the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009. Forced to arbitrate a claim against the builder of a bad home, the man was awarded less than the actual cost to repair the home. The arbitrator then destroyed the evidence so that the man could not appeal. Referencing the battle in Congress over arbitration, the article states:
Supporters of the act claim mandatory arbitration clauses force people into unfair situations where the cards are severely stacked against them.
Opponents say getting rid of arbitration would clog the justice system and open the door to countless frivolous lawsuits.
The opponents' argument is a boilerplate argument trotted out every time big business wants to limit public access to the judicial system. The public is wising up, however, as more instances of unfair arbitration proceedings emerge. I am waiting for the Chamber to explain how a consumer can afford to arbitrate a claim over a $10,000 automobile purchase when the consumer has to pay the arbitrator an hourly fee that is typically $200- $400 per hour to hear the case, in addition to his attorney's fees.
Congressional limitations on mandatory consumer arbitration has bipartisan support and appears sure to pass in some form.
