User:GregG/Mainstream media attacks on arbitration
Work in progress. Collecting links and quotes for future article on this subject.
- : "If you don't want to give up your right to personally sue them in a court of law and be forced into a kangaroo court overseen by a judge whose fees are paid for by the company you're suing, Cablevision will let you."
-  -- misleading statement that "Arbiters are typically retired judges who fetch an hourly rate of $300 or more, a fee that's generally split between the two parties"
-  -- "[Suing in small claims court] also doesn't require parties in the proceeding to keep their mouths shut after a decision is rendered, as arbitration does." -- which is false with respect to the AT&T Mobility agreement
-  -- Consumerist again, citing the trial lawyer advocacy group Public Citizen and their report on post-Concepcion arbitration law
-  -- "Arbitration, however, requires consumers to surrender their right to sue, and many consumer advocates say the process as used in financial products is biased toward banks." without further comment or elaboration.
-  -- "an arbitration procedure in which there is not a judge or jury—but rather, a private arbitrator often chosen by the corporation being sued."
-  -- another article which intones that the company chooses the arbitrator, also misstates that parties are generally required to keep results confidential
-  -- "Generally speaking, businesses prefer arbitration because settlements are limited and because professional arbitrators, whose fees are typically paid by the company in a dispute, tend to favor businesses. It's a classic example of not biting the hand that feeds", also quotes without comment Public Citizen's dubious 94% figure
-  -- "Of course, because Valve will be hiring the arbitrator in question, one can expect that the person dealing with disputes will not be completely impartial either"
-  -- from Fox Business, which is flat out wrong about discovery in arbitration
-  with respect to being able to recover from an AG action
-  -- problems with arbitrator neutrality, ability to order injunctive relief, secrecy, etc. that are not reflected in the two agreements highlighted