Posted On: July 24, 2008, 4:59 pm CDT

Posted By: Mark in A2

I have a hard time thinking that going into binding arbitration, which is arranged by the company that wrote the contract, is in any way going to favor the wronged individual. Arbitration is a way for companies to keep litigation costs down, problems out of the public record, and remedies for appeal at a minimum. While individual experiences in the legal system are certainly not all favorable (assumedly there is both a winning side and a losing side to each court case), it's a better system than the single shot you get through arbitration. Also, the legal system serves an important public service in that it provides a public record, which gives others notice about the alleged wrongdoings of a defendant. Companies that favor arbitration claim it keeps costs down for consumers and can be more expedient than going through to court, but those are simply veils for the self-serving truth behind binding arbitration. There is no public accountability in arbitration, which is the exact opposite of what consumers need. The simple litmus test (for this and most matters in business) is that if the companies are pushing or lobbying for something, then there's a good chance it favors them.