Ban Mandatory Binding Arbitration

When Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), its goal was to allow an alternative forum for parties on equal footing to resolve their disputes. Yet a series of court decisions moved the law away from its original intent and opened the door for arbitration to be used to deprive ordinary citizens in employment, consumer, and franchise disputes of their constitutional right to use the civil justice system. A large and growing number of corporations now require millions of consumers and employees to sign contracts that include mandatory arbitration clauses. Most of these individuals have little or no meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms of their contracts and so find themselves having to choose either to accept a mandatory arbitration clause or to forgo securing employment or needed goods and services. Incredibly, mandatory arbitration clauses also apply when individuals are trying to vindicate their civil rights under statutes specifically passed by Congress to protect them. The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and in the House by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), reflects the FAA's original intent by requiring that agreements to arbitrate employment, consumer, franchise, or civil rights disputes be made after the dispute has arisen. The Act does not prohibit arbitration, but it will prevent a party with greater bargaining power from forcing individuals into arbitration through a contractual provision. It will ensure that citizens have a true choice between arbitration and the traditional civil court system.

Sample Letter for Campaign

Subject: Support and Sponsor the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007

Dear [ Decision Maker ] ,

I urge you to support and co-sponsor the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007, which would ban pre-dispute Mandatory Binding Arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts. This unfair practice stacks the deck against average Americans trying to hold powerful interests accountable when they have been hurt through no fault of their own.

Buried within the fine print of many consumer contracts for credit cards, home-building contracts and car purchases are clauses that stack the deck against ordinary Americans and force consumers to give up their rights before a dispute even occurs. These "pre-dispute Mandatory Binding Arbitration" clauses have been used to deny millions of consumers and employees access to our nation's justice system.

The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 bans this unfair practice and restores the right of hardworking Americans to seek justice through the courts, often the only place they can face powerful interests on a level playing field. I urge you to support this legislation and to please consider being one of the bill's co-sponsors.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Campaign Launched:
July 16, 2007



Background Information

When Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), its goal was to allow an alternative forum for parties on equal footing to resolve their disputes. Yet a series of court decisions moved the law away from its original intent and opened the door for arbitration to be used to deprive ordinary citizens in employment, consumer, and franchise disputes of their constitutional right to use the civil justice system.

A large and growing number of corporations now require millions of consumers and employees to sign contracts that include mandatory arbitration clauses. Most of these individuals have little or no meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms of their contracts and so find themselves having to choose either to accept a mandatory arbitration clause or to forgo securing employment or needed goods and services.

The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and in the House by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), reflects the FAA's original intent by requiring that agreements to arbitrate employment, consumer, franchise, or civil rights disputes be made after the dispute has arisen. It will ensure that citizens have a true choice between arbitration and the traditional civil court system.