The attention on arbitration also seems a bit disproportionate, given the nearly-infinite ways that businesses use contracts to extract hidden value from employees and customers: incomprehensible warranty disclaimers, clauses limiting liability for damages, clauses requiring claimants to bring claims in remote and therefore expensive places, etc. Even if competition results in somewhat lower prices, that's cold comfort for those on whom the costs fall most heavily. For all its high-mindedness, the NY Times is no different. Have a legal claim arising out of Times digital products? The Times graciously lets you file a lawsuit, but you'll have to go to New York to do it, wherever you happen to live.*
I assume the NYT timed the series roughly to coincide with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's anticipated decision to regulate the use of arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts. One likely regulation would ban the use of class action waivers. For better or worse, private individual and class action lawsuits have come to occupy a significant place in the U.S. regulatory system. Yet the Supreme Court has gradually interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act to let businesses decide whether they want to participate in this system; many have opted out. This is an extraordinarily consequential development, and political actors should assume responsibility for deciding whether to embrace or reject it. So whatever the CFPB ultimately does, the decision will be noteworthy, and welcome, as one of the too-rare moments when politically-accountable actors finally take responsibility for deciding the limits of arbitration.
Read the whole thing here.