Binding arbitration game is rigged against customers, New analysis of almost 9000 arbitration cases confirms biased against consumers, Incentives to slant toward the business

Binding arbitration game is rigged against customers, New analysis of almost 9000 arbitration cases confirms biased against consumers, Incentives to slant toward the business

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

“Companies don’t want to go to court because it puts them on a level playing field. Courts are ruled by law, legal precedent, and legal discovery, which allows litigants to obtain information and evidence from their opponents or from third parties. Discovery is a privilege in arbitration, but not a right. Arbitrators can’t enforce subpoenas, meaning you have to file a lawsuit just to get a third party or a piece of information into the hearing. In open court, you don’t have to jump through nearly as many hoops. Further, judgments in court are often more favorable to the consumer, both in the rate of success and the dollar amount of judgments.”…North Carolina Consumers Council

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017


From Stanford Business March 8, 2019.

“Why the Binding Arbitration Game Is Rigged against Customers

A new study documents how companies shop for sympathetic arbitrators, and how the arbitrators compete for their business.”

“It’s the “mandatory arbitration” clause, and it’s in contracts that cover trillions of dollars of business. In the event you have a dispute with the company, it says, you agree in advance to surrender your right to sue and to submit your grievance to a supposedly neutral private arbitrator.

Almost every financial firm insists on mandatory arbitration, but so do legions of businesses in other realms: AT&T and Verizon, Amazon and Apple, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, even Spotify and Shazam.

Now, a new analysis of almost 9,000 arbitration cases from the securities industry confirms what many have long suspected: The system is biased against consumers — and not just because big companies have more money to spend on lawyers.

When it comes to arbitration, the study finds, companies have a big information advantage in fishing for arbitrators who are likely to rule in their favor.

Making matters worse, the arbitrators themselves know that being pro-company in one case greatly increases their chances of being picked for future cases.

An Incentive to Slant

“This is not like having judges, who get paid the same no matter what happens,” says Stanford Graduate School of Business finance professor Amit Seru, who collaborated on the study with Mark Egan at Harvard Business School and Gregor Matvos at the University of Texas at Austin. “Here, you only get paid if you’re selected as an arbitrator. They have incentives to slant toward the business side, because they know that those who don’t do so won’t get picked. Everyone knows what’s happening.”

In their study, the researchers scrutinized thousands of customer disputes with stockbrokers and investment advisors. The data came from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which oversees the industry’s arbitration process.

The researchers began by confirming that some arbitrators are measurably more business-friendly than others. Comparing cases on an apples-to-apples basis, the researchers estimated that business-friendly arbitrators awarded customers about 12% less money than their more pro-consumer counterparts. On an average case, that equates to about $90,000.

That was just the start, however. Even though the list from which arbitrators are picked is random, pro-business arbitrators were about 40% more likely to be chosen, so their bias had a disproportionate impact. If the arbitrators had been picked purely at random, the researchers estimated, the average award to each customer would have been $50,000 higher.”

Read more:


More here:



9 responses to “Binding arbitration game is rigged against customers, New analysis of almost 9000 arbitration cases confirms biased against consumers, Incentives to slant toward the business

  1. citizenwells

    United Insurance vs Office of Insurance Regulation, State of Florida.

    “Section 624.155 is a statute regulating the business of insurance. The statute relates, directly or indirectly, to the relationship between the insurance company and the policyholder. The proposed arbitration agreement would impair, invalidate or supersede section 624.155. The statute provides for a civil action — with the relevant procedural protections. The statute also provides for court costs and fees. Mandatory binding arbitration lacks the procedural and constitutional protections (such as jury and appeal to an Article V court) of a civil action.”

  2. citizenwells

    Thanks bob.

  3. oldsailor85+
    The Shutdown of Immigration Offices is coming?

    The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency is preparing to close down its 21 overseas offices, and shut down its international division entirely, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday. The move was announced by USCIS director Francis Cissna in an email to staffers.

    “The goal of any such shift would be to maximize U.S.C.I.S. resources that could then be reallocated, in part, to backlog reduction efforts,” a UCIS spokesperson told the New York Times. The move has yet to be fully approved by the State Department, according to the Post.

    The USCIS typically handles everything from work visa and asylum requests, to citizenship applications. According to Cissna, closing the international division offices is to “better leverage our funds to address backlogs in the United States.” However, USCIS staffers explained to the Times, shuttering the offices could impede efforts from people applying to immigrate while abroad, and make it more difficult for people already in the U.S. to bring over family members.

  4. hapnHal……..
    …………..which seems to confirm there is more than one way to skin a cat. !!
    I think that Trump is behind this and is being forced to take the more involved roads when necessary. All of his slick maneuvering is turning the liberal camp into a MASSIVE INSANE ASYLUM. They have all gone completely off their rockers. har har Cracks me up BIG TIME when I watch another LIBERAL HEAD EXPLODE. They always end up incoherently babbling to themselves as they sneak away and try to hide. I have a special bag of popcorn set aside for the day that ATOM SNIFFS head explodes. I want to watch the fragments fly. har har. I look upon him as a close cousin to Marty Feldman. NO OFFENSE INTENDED TO POOR OLD MARTY……HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS GOOFY EYE BEHAVIOR.

  5. AND SOON……..
    …………THE “MOOOOOOHER” REPORT will be out. I don’t know what flavor it will be, but just anticipating it is temporary satisfaction. WAITING AND DROOLING!!!! I AM PRAYING THAT IT WILL REFLECT THERE WAS NO COLLUSION. This will light the fuse to the explosives in the few remaining LIBERAL SKULLS THAT HAVE NOT YET EXPLODED. har har

  6. The latest from VIPS.

    Decimates the whole hacking story with the added bonus of making a good case that Guciffer 2.0 was created and concocted by the hoaxers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s