Consumer Law

Study Finds that Firms That Use Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Contracts Often Do Not Use Such Clauses in Nonconsumer Contracts

By Jeff Sovern

In "Arbitration's Summer Soldiers: An Empirical Study of Arbitration Clauses in Consumer and Nonconsumer Contracts," Theodore Eisenberg of Cornell, Geoffrey P. Miller of NYU, and Emily L. Sherwin of Cornell report that firms that use arbitration clauses in consumer contracts often do not use arbitration clauses in nonconsumer contracts.  Here's the abstract:

We provide the first study of varying use of arbitration clauses across contracts within the same firms. Using a sample of 26 consumer contracts and 164 nonconsumer contracts from large public corporations, we compared arbitration clause use in consumer contracts with their use in the same firms' nonconsumer contracts. Over three-quarters of the consumer agreements provided for mandatory arbitration but less than 10% of the firms' material nonconsumer, nonemployment contracts included arbitration clauses. The absence of arbitration provisions in nearly all material contracts suggests that, ex ante, many firms value, even prefer, litigation over arbitration to resolve disputes with peers. The frequent use of arbitration clauses in the same firms' consumer contracts appears to be an effort to preclude aggregate consumer action rather than, as often claimed, an effort to promote fair and efficient dispute resolution. Other common features of civil litigation reform discussion, avoidance of juries and loser-pays attorney fee rules, find little support in the pattern of contractual terms we observe.

Full post as published by CL&P Blog on June 26, 2008 (boomark / email).