Study portrays credit card binding arbitration as fairIt's the latest salvo in a dispute over a universal, but criticized, practice By Seamus McAfee
A study released March 11 comes to the defense of using
arbitration to settle disputes between consumers and financial institutions.
The use of binding arbitration -- required by most major credit card issuers -- has been blasted in previous studies and by
consumer advocates as one-sided in favor of businesses, and legislation has
been introduced to regulate it. But
according to the study
from the Northwestern University School of Law's Searle Civil Justice
Institute, arbitration -- at least as practiced by the one group that was
studied -- is fair to credit card users.
The Searle study evaluated in depth 301 disputes
that came before the United States' largest provider of arbitration, the American
Arbitration Association (AAA), and found they were reasonably priced and
consumers had a decent shot at prevailing.
"The study shows that due process protocols to protect
consumers' procedural rights are routinely enforced in AAA consumer
arbitrations," says Geoff Lysaught, director of the Searle Civil Justice
Institute in a press
release. "Access to justice is provided in a relatively inexpensive
and expeditious manner, and outcomes are not biased in favor of businesses that
arbitrate on a repeat basis."
Searle's study contrasts sharply to one by the public interest group Public Citizen, which analyzed the results of thousands
of credit card disputes that came before another arbitration group, the
National Arbitration Foundation. In its September 2007 report, "The Arbitration
Trap: How Credit Card Companies Ensnare Consumers" Public Citizen painted
arbitration as unfair with "stunning results that disfavor consumers," with the
arbitrator siding with creditors 94 percent of the time.
The Arbitration Fairness Act
of 2009 was recently introduced to Congress to address these claims. The bill
would prohibit mandatory arbitration in consumer, employment and franchise
disputes and allow consumers to choose between arbitration or a jury trial at
court. The Searle Center, which researches the economic impact of laws and
regulations and communicates their results to academia and government leaders,
said its study was conducted to provide evidence to make an informed decision
on the bill.
Other
findings include:
- The cost for arbitration cases was "quite low," with
consumer claimants paying an average of $96 for claims under $10,000 and about
$219 for claims between $10,000 and $75,000.
- Arbitration was relatively speedy in settling debt
disputes, taking an average of seven months from filing a claim to settlement.
- Consumers had an even shot, finding "some relief" in
53.3 percent of the cases they filed and getting back an average of $19,255.
The
Searle Center encouraged policymakers reviewing the arbitration bill to
"consider the role that arbitration providers can play in promoting fairness on
behalf of consumers."
See related: Binding arbitration: What it is, how it works, 6 tips for dealing with binding arbitration
Published: March 12, 2009
 |
 |
 |
 |
Three most recent Research, statistics stories:
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
CreditCards.com's newsletter
Did you like this story? Then sign up for CreditCards.com’s weekly e-newsletter for the latest news, advice, articles and tips. It's FREE. Once a week you will receive the top credit card industry news in your inbox. Sign up now!
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|