Notes

What the ad did not say: Its sponsor wants to rein in the agency in part because of its efforts to restrict arbitration — the widespread practice in corporate America of requiring customers and employees to resolve disputes not in the courts, but in private proceedings with neither judge nor jury.
The consumer agency’s stance on arbitration, while difficult to convey in a TV spot, “is a perfect example of how government is taking away the power of individuals and handing it to the trial lawyers,
The flurry of activity follows the publication by The New York Times of a three-part series showing how corporations use mandatory arbitration to circumvent the court system and derail legal claims alleging predatory lending, wage theft, discrimination and other violations. The reporting detailed how arbitration proceedings tend to favor businesses over individuals. In some instances, arbitration clauses require disputes to be settled in Christian arbitration, a process governed by the Bible rather than state or federal law.
Arbitration has remained largely untouchable because of a pair of Supreme Court rulings in 2011 and 2013 that cleared the way for the use of class-action bans in contracts. With the current Supreme Court’s having now twice enshrined the wide use of arbitration, many opponents have pinned their hopes on the consumer agency’s proposed rule.
In 2010 and 2011, businesses won arbitration claims against consumers totaling $2.8 million, the findings showed, compared with awards to consumers totaling less than $400,000.
One reason arbitration advocates consider the bureau a significant threat is that it is empowered to issue rules without legislative approval, making them more difficult to defeat.
a panelist cited the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s arbitration rule as an example of overreaching government oversight.



More companies are adopting the mandatory-arbitration clauses, and many employees are walking away from harassment, wrongful-termination and discrimination claims rather than taking them to a privately run tribunal, according to experts and new research.
In many cases, workers drop the claims because they can’t get lawyers to take their cases. Plaintiffs’ lawyers say they are reluctant to represent arbitration clients on contingency fees because potential settlement and award payouts are generally lower than in court.
When they call, “I say, I’m sorry, arbitration is stacked against you,” he said.
Arbitration involves trial-like hearings, often conducted by former judges or lawyers. Employers typically assume the costs of the arbitration service if it is mandated, but both parties have a say in deciding who hears the case, drawing names from a roster. Arbitrators usually don’t follow federal rules of civil procedure and, compared with courts, impose tighter limits on pretrial discovery. Arbitration cases are generally confidential and harder to appeal.
The business community says arbitration is a cheaper, faster and simpler way to adjudicate claims. But critics say the system is secretive and unfair to workers