![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-25168-100x100.png\")
It kind of makes you wonder what sort of the things were done by the corporations who actually did lose.
It kind of makes you wonder what sort of the things were done by the corporations who actually did lose.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
that's ugly !
they need to remove the privately funded part
from the arbitration that is
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-94321-100x100.png\")
hard to say if 95% of all consumer cases in front of arbitrators are shitty.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-93620-100x100.png\")
Hmm, this seems like a skewed sample set. If I'm reading it correctly, 99.6% of the cases are brought to arbitration BY the companies. I would imagine that the party BRINGING the case would have a better legal standing.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-101046-100x100.png\")
There are no surprises in this article.
Mandatory binding arbitration is used by credit card companies and many other large companies that have to 'deal' with consumers to avoid the legal system where the consumer might actually have a fair shake.
The firms actually doing the arbitration have a thinly veiled interest in finding on the side of the companies, or they might not get the nod in the next case.
The cases are often ruled upon solely on the basis of documents and information provided by the company with no notice or regard given to the consumer.
If the consumer requests a formal hearing, they must pay for it.
This kind of thing is only legal because of the pro-business interests and lobbies making sure that this kind of anti-consumer mentality is prevalent in congress, as who the hell are consumers and the public to know what's best for them anyway.
This is the same reason they are not required to tell you how long it would take to pay off your cards if you make the 'minimum' payment.
@dabu: Not true. One could make the assumption that since the companies choose who does the arbitration, they are going to pick a firm who has been shall we say generous in the past.
And as I stated before, the firms' interest would be to make the companies happy. After all, Citibank will bring them more business than you or I would.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-11093-100x100.png\")
I don't think that the arbitration rate for companies being so high is strange -- more than likely they'll open the case for you, since they know that a) you're not getting a chance to show anything without forking out moneymoneymoney, and b) it's not like you'll win anyway.
Although I will say, the statistics on this are absolutely disgusting.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1692-100x100.png\")
*feigns astonishment*
What? You mean these extra-judicial civil kangaroo courts aren't looking out for the little guy? And you say that Congress has cheerfully ignored this abusive practice for years? Double what?!
See doctor_cos for details.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-5270-100x100.png\")
Thanks for the raw data, Ben! Much appreciated.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-62527-100x100.png\")
i love the creepy look of the guy in the background to the right. lolz.
@doctor_cos: Gotcha. Yeah, that makes more sense. I'm assuming both parties have to agree on an arbitrator, but businesses being seasoned in this sort of thing, probably choose arbitrators that always favor them. Of course a consumer wouldn't know squat.
no i think that 95% of all consumers are just wrong. i mean those big corporations wouldn't do anything dirty to consumers. i think everything should be done by an arbitrator.
ok hopefully you sense a overpowering feel of sarcasm from my last post.
how could anyone work for these companies? i would shoot myself! unless one of the 95% of consumers who lost did it first. lets find this place and burn it down!, i mean have a peaceful demonstration.
WWJA-----who would jesus arbitrate.
hows this for my new bumper sticker idea:
masturbation-not arbitration. or
only a hatian would go to arbitration! okay so i'm not really a funny kind of guy. but hows this for a real one
arbitration=discrimination.
if 95% of all consmers are \"wrong\" and its all suposedly fair, then why do they even have arbitration? it seems to me if your winning that many cases, why not let them go to court. i think the corporations know they would lose more than 5% in the legal system. not too mention they cases would all make the news and the corps. would actually have to be held accountable at least by the consumers.
Hmmmm... Seems like these Arbitration firms are prime for a class action lawsuit. The class would be the 95% of consumers who have been screwed over by these business funded firms. Funny since we've been reading on Consumerist that some of the big guys (Verizon is one I believe) have been hit by State Attorney Generals for trying to use their arbitration clauses to avoid class action. Even more ironic is that the evidence would include the cases that were never tried in a real court!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-75568-100x100.png\")
Disgusting