Arbitration denies consumers their day in court

For many consumers, their user agreement with any business likely contains an arbitration clause, which prohibits you from bringing your claim in a court, and private arbitration is your only option. The April 2011 United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision called AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion ruled that these types of arbitration clauses are not only enforceable, they also prevent you from pursuing your claim on a class action basis within the private arbitration. Given that the average consumer's claims is likely for a relatively small sum of money, it is not economical for us to represent consumers individually in arbitration. The one-sided contract consumers "agree to" takes away consumer rights, including the right to sue which consumers had until recently.

The problem is so pronouced that the New York Times ran a two-part story regarding the pitfalls of arbitration.  Click here to read Part I and here for Part II.

Quantum Legal strongly believes that AT&T v. Concepcion is wrong as a matter of law, and unfair in its practical consequences. Consumers are losing access to the courts, and big business now has a situation where people are unable to reasonably fight small fees and widespread injustices. Fortunately, the Concepcion Supreme Court decision can be changed if Congress passes the law entitled the "Arbitration Fairness Act," which would reverse Concepcion.

Please contact your congressperson and/or senator via the following websites - or - and encourage them to vote to pass the Arbitration Fairness Act, which would restore your right to pursue a class action to vindicate your legal rights. The passage of the Arbitration Fairness Act will also send a message to corporate America that they will be held accountable for unfair business practices, no matter how small the individual monetary damage may be.