The Arbitration Debate Trap: How Opponents of Corporate Accountability Distort the Debate on Arbitration
Publication Date: July 2008
Publisher(s): Public Citizen, inc.
Keywords: court; due process; arbitration; contract
Coverage: United States
This report examines two recent papers on binding mandatory arbitration that were published or financially supported by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.
Public Citizen analyzes the empirical evidence that these "Chamber Papers" cite, finding that they paint a grossly inaccurate picture of the evidence on binding mandatory arbitration. Significantly, not a single study cited in the Chamber papers showed individuals receiving higher average awards in arbitration than court. Individuals also fared worse in most other measures comparing the two forums.
Finally, even the author of the papers, Catholic University law professor Peter Rutledge, has contradicted many of the papers' claims in his past writings.