Excellent article in the New York Times about how start-ups are copying big corporations in using forced arbitration to take away workers’ rights. Here is the link.
A large group of public interest groups sent a letter to CEO’s for several Fortune 500 companies asking them to withdraw mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts with consumers.
The Los Angeles Times reports that Wells Fargo customers are being forced into arbitration, even when bank employees fraudulently open accounts.
On January 11, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant review of a decision from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that had upheld a trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration.
Terisa Chaw of the National Employment Lawyers Association wrote an op-ed in the Huffington Post explaining why it is unfair to force employees to participate in mandatory arbitration.
Jessica Silver Greenberg & Michael Corkery author an article pointing out the hypocrisy of big businesses that want access to the courts, but don’t think consumers should have that.
In The Arbitration Epidemic: Mandatory Arbitration Deprives Workers And Consumers Of Their Rights, Katherine V.W. Stone and Alexander J.S. Colvin outline the problems posed by mandatory arbitration and explain how, in a series of rulings, the Supreme Court has freed up large corporations to sidestep the legal system through arbitration clauses.
The New York Times recent articles on mandatory arbitration did a great job of shining the light on how arbitration clauses are creating a private secret judicial system.
In a recent editorial from the New York Times, the editorial board has called for the end to mandatory arbitration.
On November 2, 2015, the third and final article on mandatory arbitration was published in The New York Times.
On October 31, 2015, when part 1 of a New York Times Article was published (which we recently posted on the blog), it was shared so vigorously and read by so many people that the word “arbitration” was actually trending on TWITTER.
The New York Times investigative report details how corporations have stacked the deck against consumers by using arbitration clauses with class action bans.
Consumer Reports published an interesting article on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau proposal to limit class action bans. The article can be found here.
On October 4, 2015, David Morris, the Director of The Public Good Initiative at the Institute For Local Self-Reliance, wrote an article for The Huffington Post entitled “Corporations Now Have Their Own Private Judiciary System.”
The financial services industry is already opposing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s moves to restrict arbitration clauses on credit card, bank account and other contracts, and could challenge in court any final rules using recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings and even the Dodd-Frank Act itself against the bureau.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) announced on October 7, 2015, that it is proposing rules to permit arbitration clauses that will allow consumers to bring class action lawsuits.
A California federal judge refused to allow Uber Technologies Inc. to send to arbitration two putative class actions in which drivers allege the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by running background checks without authorization.
Jean Sternlight from UNLV has written a very good article on why the U.S. Supreme Court precedent supports the contention that mandatory arbitration violates Article III of the Constitution.
Yesterday, following three years of intense research, empirical studies, and analysis, following dozens of submissions by a wide range of stakeholders including thousands of pages, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau issued its Final Report, mandated by Congress in the Dodd-Frank Act, as to the effects of mandatory arbitration/class action waivers. From the CFPB press release:
The Oregon Attorney General, Ellen Rosenblum, and 15 other attorneys general have sent a letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau asking the federal government to adopt rules that protect consumers from mandatory arbitration clauses in important contracts.
