| Yes -- thanks for pointing this out. Unfortunately I have seen recently some arbitration clauses now include language saying, for example, that arbitration costs will be shared equally(!) or otherwise limiting their use by consumers. However, the more that these mandatory arbitration clauses limit consumer rights the more likely that they will be found to be unenforceable. This is one reason that you'll often find that contracts with mandatory arbitration will have a clause specifying that in the event the arbitration clause is unenforceable that the rest of the agreement still stands. The MegaCorps add this clause because they know that they are pushing the boundaries of what will be allowed by the courts. Historically arbitration was intended to be a solution for parties of comparable bargaining power (e.g. MegaCorpABC vs MegaCorpXYZ) but instead are increasingly used by MegaCorp vs LittleConsumer. Does anybody in the U.S. have a credit card that doesn't impose mandatory arbitration? Not that I've seen. This is a topic that deserves much more news coverage. Most consumers have no clue how mandatory arbitration is being used against them. And that's before we even consider their more egregious use in, for example, employment agreements as was the case in the article you've shared. |