User:GregG/Mainstream media attacks on arbitration

Work in progress. Collecting links and quotes for future article on this subject.

• [1]: "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."
• [2]
• [3]
• [4] -- 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"
• [5] -- "[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
• [6] -- Consumerist again, citing the trial lawyer advocacy group Public Citizen and their report on post-Concepcion arbitration law
• [7]
• [8] -- "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.
• [9] -- "an arbitration procedure in which there is not a judge or jury—but rather, a private arbitrator often chosen by the corporation being sued."
• [10] -- another article which intones that the company chooses the arbitrator, also misstates that parties are generally required to keep results confidential
• [11] -- "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
• [12] -- "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"
• [13]
• [14] -- from Fox Business, which is flat out wrong about discovery in arbitration
• [15] with respect to being able to recover from an AG action
• [16] -- problems with arbitrator neutrality, ability to order injunctive relief, secrecy, etc. that are not reflected in the two agreements highlighted