BMA Proponents: Consumers Don't Know What's Good For Them; the Businesses That Write the Contracts Do

by Richard Alderman

  Last Wednesday, I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007. In simple terms, the bill prohibits pre-dispute arbitration in employment and consumer contracts.  Paul Bland also testified and did a great job. Here is his testimony.

In my testimony,  I discussed the "big-picture" effect of eliminating the courts from consumer disputes. My argument was similar to the one in my recent article, The Future of Consumer Law in the United States - Hello Arbitration, Bye-Bye Courts, So-Long Consumer Protection.  I thought it went well.  Even Senator Brownback, who stated his opposition to the bill, noted that I raised an interesting point that he would have to think about.

What surprised me, however, was the approach of those opposing the bill.  All of those testifying in opposition, mostly employees of arbitration associations and big law firms that defend arbitration of disputes, echoed the same sentiment: "We can't eliminate pre-dispute arbitration because forcing consumers to arbitrate is in their best interest." I heard statistic after statistic about how much more money consumers receive and how much quicker they receive it, in arbitration. Listening to this testimony, you would have thought I was hired by big business to testify, and the others were doing the Lord's work helping consumers.  I began to question whether I should have even been testifying in support of the bill. Was I anti-consumer?

I must admit, listening to those opposed to the bill, I appreciated their concerns for my interests as a consumer. Don't we all want consumers to be able to collect more in damages, and get their money faster? Why are those of us who support the bill so unconcerned with what is best for consumers? Maybe I was wrong in thinking that consumers benefit from the ability to go to court. But then I remembered who it was who was looking out for the consumer -- business. To my knowledge, no consumer organization or consumer advocate favors mandatory, binding, pre-dispute arbitration and none have testified against the Arbitration fairness Act. Yet dispute that fact,  business and arbitration associations apparently have decided that the best approach to take in defeating this bill is to say we (consumers and employees) don't know what is good for us-and they do.  It does not appear that the irony in this has been recognized by Congress. In fact, with more hearings we just get more statistics, all designed to convince us that "business knows best," and we ignorant consumers should just let them continue to do what is best for us-denying us the right to sue and forcing us to arbitrate all our disputes.

Comments

[d]

Well said! We should point this out at the next hearing (whenever that is) on AFA. I read through the testimony listed on the Senate Committee's website and you encapsulated it quite well. Brownback served as the Senate motuhpiece for the BMA proponents and said arbitratiion is best for consumers.

We need to caspitalize on the AFA momentum. Big business gotg CAFA and the Bankruptcy laws; consumer should have a fair shot. The courts, starting with the Supremes in 1985, have gotten this issue so wrong for so long that only AFA will solve the problem.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!