Seems like a proper ruling. Like it or not, cars are a relative necessity in American society. If all companies are using mandatory arbitration clauses then there is no real choice. While excess litigation is certainly a problem, mandating arbitration in a system controlled by the automakers is no solution. The best solution is likely like appraisal in insurance policies; require ADR (arb) prior to allowing suit to be filed (“cooperation with policy terms…”) but then allow suit after the arb if it does not bring about resolution. However, a loser pays format (costs, and perhaps fees, at least to an extent) would discourage frivilous litigation and would encourage parties to work together and to be reasonable.
Binding Mandatory Arbitration clauses are typically used by corporations against consumers to prevent them from being able to go to court and have a public hearing over warranty claims. If the vehicles were built right in the first place, there would be no need for concern at all. When you look at actual court statistics, the “excess” in litigation is not caused by consumers filing cases at all but is, in fact, due to the increasing amount of business-on-business litigation. Curiously, business agreements often do not have any binding arbitration clauses while those same businesses use them against consumers. Thus, corporations want to be able to fight each other in court but they don’t want consumers to be able to fight back through the court system at all. That approach is not fair to the marketplace, consumers, or open competition. While the loser pays concept has a visceral appeal, it hasn’t stemmed the tide of litigation in those countries that have adopted it either. Not sure what the “right” answer may be, but binding mandatory arbitration certainly isn’t it.
Seems like a proper ruling. Like it or not, cars are a relative necessity in American society. If all companies are using mandatory arbitration clauses then there is no real choice. While excess litigation is certainly a problem, mandating arbitration in a system controlled by the automakers is no solution. The best solution is likely like appraisal in insurance policies; require ADR (arb) prior to allowing suit to be filed (“cooperation with policy terms…”) but then allow suit after the arb if it does not bring about resolution. However, a loser pays format (costs, and perhaps fees, at least to an extent) would discourage frivilous litigation and would encourage parties to work together and to be reasonable.
Binding Mandatory Arbitration clauses are typically used by corporations against consumers to prevent them from being able to go to court and have a public hearing over warranty claims. If the vehicles were built right in the first place, there would be no need for concern at all. When you look at actual court statistics, the “excess” in litigation is not caused by consumers filing cases at all but is, in fact, due to the increasing amount of business-on-business litigation. Curiously, business agreements often do not have any binding arbitration clauses while those same businesses use them against consumers. Thus, corporations want to be able to fight each other in court but they don’t want consumers to be able to fight back through the court system at all. That approach is not fair to the marketplace, consumers, or open competition. While the loser pays concept has a visceral appeal, it hasn’t stemmed the tide of litigation in those countries that have adopted it either. Not sure what the “right” answer may be, but binding mandatory arbitration certainly isn’t it.