A reminder: anti-arbitration is anti-consumer

by Ted Frank on August 10, 2010

The Center for Class Action Fairness filed an amicus brief yesterday on behalf of consumers in the Supreme Court case of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion; Public Citizen brought a suit successfully striking an arbitration provision in a cell-phone contract as “unconscionable” because it did not provide for bringing class actions—even though consumers as a whole would be better off with the generous arbitration provision than with opportunity for the class action. Of course, then trial lawyers lose out. More at Point of Law; and Public Citizen’s page on the case has other briefs and links to (generally pro-trial-lawyer) blog commentary.

{ 2 comments }

1 Tom T. 08.11.10 at 9:26 am

Can a consumer still *opt* for arbitration? The suit just strikes a provision making it mandatory, right?

2 Ted 08.11.10 at 9:36 am

If the consumer does not have the choice to pre-commit to not bringing an extortionate lawsuit, the vendor cannot provide the consumer the lower costs available for making that promise.

The trial lawyers and Public Citizen want to forbid honest consumers like me from making that choice.

Comments on this entry are closed.