Mandatory Arbitration: Friend of Big Business and Enemy of Consumers?
Virtually every consumer contract now contains a mandatory arbitration clause that reads something like this: “All claims and disputes arising under or relating to this agreement are to be settled by binding arbitration.” That sounds innocuous enough, at least until you find out what binding arbitration really means.
According to a report from the American Association for Justice, mandatory binding arbitration is a “license to steal.” An example they use bears this out: Back in 1998, an 81-year-old woman named Mabel Strobel was a client of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. On the advice of her broker, Strobel sold a rental property in San Diego and invested the proceeds in the stock market. In the next four years, through the magic of the market, Morgan Stanley turned her $1 million investment into about $700,000. Strobel claimed the company inappropriately invested her money, considering her investment objectives, risk tolerance and sophistication. Unfortunately, the contract Strobel signed with the brokerage contained an arbitration clause. So she brought an arbitration case against Morgan Stanley. In 2004, an arbitration panel sided with Strobel, holding the brokerage liable for her losses. So we have a happy ending for the consumer, right?