Mandatory Arbitration May Hurt Consumers

It has become commonplace for contracts these days, including most customer agreements, include provisions requiring arbitration for disputes that arise under the contract.

According to the Los Angeles Times, critics of this practice argue that arbitration typically favors the companies and not the consumer. Thus, the consumers are less likely tor receive a positive outcome than if they were to file litigation. Moreover, these mandatory arbitration provisions often allow the company to select the arbitrator.

For example, the Times story points to a Fontana man who asserted that he was discriminated against because of a prosthetic leg was ruled against by a federal arbitrator. However, he believes a jury would have seen the issue differently.

However, these critics are hopeful that the Obama Administration will be likely to pursue legislation which would forbid this practice.

According to the story, polls indicate that 59% of American’s do not support mandatory arbitration provisions in contracts.

Disclaimer: The foregoing is general legal information only and not intended to serve as legal advice or a substitute for legal advice. If you have been injured or damaged due to mandatory arbitration go to www.ContingencyCase.com to see if there is a lawyer or attorney in your local area who is willing to take your case on a contingency fee basis. ContingencyCase.com is an online legal directory that allows Attorneys to advertise their availability to take all kinds of cases on a contingency fee basis (for example personal injury, eminent domain, contract cases, partnership disputes, etc.). Please note there are no guarantees that any attorney or lawyer will take your case. Copyright 2009 ContingencyCase.com – All Rights Reserved.