Dispute Resolution – Easy, Private, Affordable
ARS has a panel of legal industry experts who offer commentary about online arbitration and dispute resolution in this blog. Subscribe to the ARS blog to read the latest news about online dispute resolution and how it can help you to privately resolve conflicts.
Back in 1997, George Friedman, a member of the ARS Board of Directors, predicted and planned for the economic collapse of 2008, alternative energy needs, hybrid and electric cars, and now the future of arbitration. Check out his predictions that were applauded at the 2013 Securities Experts Roundtable in Boston.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a Montana rule of law that invalidated take-it-or-leave-it form contracts that deviated from the “reasonable expectations” of the parties. In Mortenson v. Bresnan Communications, LLC, the court reversed a district court decision refusing to enforce a predispute arbitration agreement found in an internet service provider’s form contact.
The 2012 Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (“JOBS Act”) is aimed at making it easier for small businesses to raise funds. The JOBS Act requires the SEC to perform studies and write rules to implement the law. Toward that end, the SEC solicited comments on Title III of the act, which concerns crowdfunding (a broad term used…
In April, George Friedman responded to a US News & World Report column by Dan Solin criticizing the FINRA arbitration forum. Solin, a long-time critic of FINRA, has just published a new article critical of FINRA executives’ compensation relative to investor performance. Friedman, one of our Board Directors, is uniquely qualified to respond to this…
In early May, bills were introduced in the House and Senate , attempting to breathe new life into the concept of a federal Arbitration Fairness Act (“AFA”). The bills would amend the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) by adding a new chapter invalidating predispute arbitration agreements (“PDAAs”) for consumer, investor, employment, or civil rights claims. The proposed legislation is similar to prior failed efforts to similarly amend the FAA going back at least to 2005.
This article analyzes the AFA of 2013 and concludes that, while a well- intended effort to address a legitimate concern – PDAAs imposed via an adhesion contract by dominant parties on weaker parties like consumers and employees – it in fact is a potentially dangerous overreaction that could end up harming those it intends to protect. The article closes with the author’s recommendation for a better way to address these concerns.