A successful arbitration program in Madison County has some folks calling for more arbitration in place of courts. This is one of those things that isn’t a problem until it becomes a problem.
Basically, the program in Madison forces individuals with complaints between $10,000 and $50,000 to bring their case to an arbitration panel. After the panel makes a decision, the individual can either accept it or take the case to court. Apparently, it has sped up the process for some, so it’s understandable why there'd be talk of expanding it. However, there is a fine line between helpful arbitration programs like this, and "binding" arbitration that only deprives consumers of their rights.
As we’ve blogged about before, businesses increasingly insert binding arbitration clauses into consumer contracts. These agreements force consumers to bring legal disputes before specified arbitration courts. While the arbiters of these panels are often untrained or hand-selected by the businesses themselves, their judgments are final, meaning consumers have no way to access their fundamental right to a trial by jury. Most of us have already agreed to some type of binding arbitration clause, perhaps unknowingly. You can find them hidden in the fine print of credit card, automobile, and real estate agreements, employment contracts, insurance policies, and pretty much everywhere else (read this CJ&D white paper for more on binding arbitration).
The trouble is, Big Business refuses to acknowledge that binding arbitration is more hostile to consumers than Madison County-style programs. That’s what makes the talk down there unsettling.
Federal lawmakers have the opportunity to combat the national trend of arbitration agreements by passing important bills such as the Arbitration Fairness Act (S. 1782 and H.R. 3010) and the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act (S. 2838 and H.R. 6126). In the meantime, Illinois consumers and public officials need to be wary of this assault on our right to access the civil justice system.
Comments