For many, arbitration seems quite fair until they look at actual experience which shows just how corrupt it is. A recent study of cases in California used an "8-month analysis of 34,000 cases decided by the National Arbitration Forum over a four year period and found link here:
* 188 of the cases were brought before NAF by consumers, 99.6% by corporations
* On one arbitrator's busiest day, assuming an eight-hour workday, he decided a case once every seven minutes. 100% of those were in favor of the business, awarding 100% of the request money.
* 28 NAF arbitrators handled about 9 out of 10 of the cases, ruling for business 95% of the time.
* 120 other arbitrators handled 10% of the cases, ruling for businesses 86% of the time."
Since third-party arbitrators are usually part of the deal and avoid the courts, most people think that money can be saved and that they are fair because they are third-party professionals. Not so according to ex-arbitrator West Virginia judge Richard Neely who has written a short graphic description of the wrongs involved link here. "For example, arbitration has been an imaginative way for monopoly business to circumvent statutory and common law protections. Relying on the Federal Arbitration Act, [federal] courts have allowed consumer arbitration clauses to undermine the deterrent effect of class action remedies." Interestingly, he has a cure, but not on the federal level--he wants the state courts to apply new rules, requiring full disclosure of arbitrators possible conflicts of interest and voiding arbitration clauses in any consumer contract that are illegal or unconscionable.
It seems to me that the real issue here is the support the arbitration system gives to established monopoly. Business has found another way to avoid competition and it has all the appearance of fairness but not the reality. Is the remedy a requirement to go to court rather than to arbitration?
