Senate Democrats have introduced a new bill (which, of course, will go nowhere, but still) to reduce the usage of forced arbitration clauses in contracts.
'“When Americans sign cell phone agreements, rent an apartment, or accept a contract for a job, most of us focus on the service we are about to receive or that we are about to provide. What Americans do not realize—until it is too late—is that too often we are also signing away crucial legal rights,” Leahy said. “Legal fine print tips the scales against us. It is forcing consumers into private arbitration, denying us of our Constitutional right to protect ourselves in court.”'
The problem is less, I suspect, people not reading the fine print, but that this web of arbitration is, when noticed, seen as hypothetical risk against a very real inflexible need.
So there's a binding arbitration clause in my employment contract; do I simply say no, no, and go and find another job? Are there that many jobs out there without such clauses? How do I find out before I apply?
Oh, hey, and, yeah, I could say no to that apartment rental contract with the binding arbitration clause, but this place I just found is perfect, and there aren't many apartments on the market right now, so I'll just take that chance.
And my cell phone is broken, and all the big carriers have these same clauses in their contracts. So I should simply give up carrying a mobile?
Is arbitration always a bad thing? No, not at all, and when organized correctly and impartially, it has serious advantages over courtroom-based litigation. But the latter should always be available as an option, because company-imposed arbitration arrangements are rarely balanced and impartial.
Hopefully this bill will get some traction, though it being an election year, the Senate, and something introduced by the Democrats, I suspect it will never see the light of day beyond a press release.
