Just saw this article talking about how more and more companies are sneaking clauses into contracts that force people into private dispute resolution instead of letting them go to court. Apparently, it's supposed to be quicker and cheaper, but the article pointed out that it can sometimes favor the bigger party (like a company) because they use the same arbitrators over and over again...kinda feels like stacking the deck, you know?
Curious if anyone else read about this or had experiences with it. Seems kinda shady to me.
Had a similar experience a couple years back when I was working with a client on a pretty big residential project. We had a disagreement over some design changes mid-way through construction, and the contract had one of those arbitration clauses tucked away in the fine print. Honestly, at first, I thought it might be better—faster resolution, less hassle, you know?
But once we got into it, things felt off. The arbitrator clearly knew the client's lawyer from previous cases (they even joked about past meetings), and while they weren't openly biased, it just didn't feel entirely neutral. The whole process was quicker than court would've been, sure, but I couldn't shake the feeling that the deck was stacked slightly against me. Ended up settling for less than I probably would've gotten if I'd pushed harder or gone to court.
Afterwards, I did some digging and found out this arbitrator had handled multiple disputes for the same client before. Not saying there was outright favoritism, but familiarity definitely seemed to play a role. Since then, I've been way more cautious about signing contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses—at least without negotiating some say in choosing the arbitrator.
I get why companies prefer arbitration (less public exposure, quicker resolutions), but from my experience, fairness can really depend on who's running the show. It's not always shady per se...but transparency and neutrality aren't guaranteed either.
"Not saying there was outright favoritism, but familiarity definitely seemed to play a role."
Yeah, I totally get this. Arbitration sounds good on paper—quick and private—but the neutrality can be questionable. Had a friend who went through something similar; arbitrator had worked with the other party multiple times. Even without blatant bias, familiarity subtly influences decisions. It's not always shady, but transparency matters...and arbitration doesn't always deliver.
