Forced arbitration: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

'''[[wikipedia:Arbitration|Forced arbitration]]''' is a practice in which businesses can require their customers to resolve disputes through arbitration, instead of a traditional court system. Per Wikipedia: "Arbitration is a formal method of dispute resolution involving a third party neutral who makes a binding decision."

== Origins ==

In 2011<ref>''American Express v Italian Colors Restaurant'', 133 S. Ct. 2403 (2013); ''AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion'', 131 S.

Ct. 1740 (2011).</ref> and 2013<ref>{{Cite web |date=Apr 16, 2019 |title=Fact Sheet: Cases Tossed Out of Court Because of Forced Arbitration Causes and Class Action Bans |url=https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn1 |access-date=Feb 12, 2026 |website=Center for Justice & Democracy at New York Law School}}</ref> cases received rulings from the ''Supreme Court of the United States'' wherein corporations can strip individuals of their constitutional right to civil jury trial and force them into private, corporate-controlled arbitration systems to resolve disputes. These rulings also stated that companies have the unilateral right to ban class actions by inserting class action “waivers” into these arbitration clauses.

In 2018, the scope of these decisions were expanded by ''Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis'',<ref>''Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis'', 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018).</ref> wherein workers whose employment contracts contain class action waivers was decided to not violate legal rights granted to workers by the ''National Labor Relations Act''. This decision impacted millions of employment contracts,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=Oct 2, 2017 |title=Supreme Court Divided on Arbitration for Workplace Cases |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/politics/supreme-court-workplace-arbitration.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.is/gd5bQ |archive-date=Feb 12, 2026 |access-date=Feb 12, 2026 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> and analysis by the ''National Law Journal'' has shown that the employment cases, most of which were class actions, “broke in favor of the defendant.” At least 50% of these cases compelled plaintiffs to arbitrate.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mulvaney |first=Erin |date=Feb 28, 2019 |title='Epic' Impact: How a Major SCOTUS Decision in Favor of Arbitration Is Shaping the Landscape for Workplace Lawsuits |url=https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/02/28/epic-impact-how-a-major-scotus-decision-in-favor-of-arbitration-is-shaping-the-landscape-for-workplace-lawsuits/?slreturn=20260212061628 |journal=National Law Journal |via=Law.com}}</ref>

==How it works==

Line 50:

Line 57:

*Zenimax Media (Bethesda) has an arbitration agreement that can only be opted out of within 30 days, ''by mail''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=ZeniMax Terms of Service |url=https://www.zenimax.com/en/legal/terms-of-service |access-date=2025-05-31 |website=ZeniMax Media}}</ref>

*[[Zoom]]'s Terms of Service, Section 27.1, says: "You and Zoom agree that any dispute or claim between you and Zoom arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the Services (a “Dispute”), including any related software, hardware, integrations, advertising or marketing communications, your account, or any aspects of your relationship or transactions with Zoom, will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court."<ref>{{Cite web |date=11 Aug 2023 |title=Zoom Terms of Service |url=https://www.zoom.com/it/trust/terms/?cms_guid=false&lang=null |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=[[Zoom]]}}</ref>

== Legal cases ==

Many cases, often class actions, were turned away because of forced arbitration clauses, below is an incomplete list of consumer protection cases shut down by forced arbitraton.

{| class="wikitable"

|+

!Case name

!Year

!Summary

!Related article

|-

|'''''Clemins v. GE Money Bank, No. 11-CV-00210, 2012 WL 5868659'''''

|2012

|[TBA]

|

|-

|'''''Jabbari v. Wells Fargo & Co.'', No. 15-CV-02159-VC (N.D. Cal. 2017).'''

|2017

|In 2017, Wells Fargo settled with many of its customers whose credit scores were harmed after thousands of bank employees opened as many as 3.5 million fake checking and credit card accounts in customers’ names to meet the company’s aggressive sales goals. Yet for years, the company had forced complaining customers into arbitration and just a few months before the bank agreed to settle this case, it tried to kill the case by forcing defrauded customers to arbitrate.<!-- https://money.cnn.com/2017/03/29/investing/wells-fargo-settles-fake-account-lawsuit-110-million/index.html

https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/25/investing/wells-fargo-lawsuit-forced-arbitration/?iid=EL -->

|

|-

|'''''G.G. v. Valve Corp., No. 2:16cv01941, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50640'''''

|2017

|[TBA] - Lawsuit against valve over CS:GO loot boxes being gambling, compelled into arbitration

|

|-

|'''''Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA'', 889 F.3d 1230'''

|2018

|From 2008 to 2009 across various class actions, Wells Fargo was abusing its forced arbitration clause to combat legal cases wherein the company unlawfully charged overdraft fees.

|

|-

|'''''DeNicolo v. The Hertz Corp'', No. 19-210'''

|2019

|[TBA]<!-- https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans

Top of "Rentals Cars/Automobiles"

https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn11

-->

|

|}

==References==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''[[wikipedia:Arbitration|Forced arbitration]]''' is a practice in which businesses can require their customers to resolve disputes through arbitration, instead of a traditional court system. Per Wikipedia: "Arbitration is a formal method of dispute resolution involving a third party neutral who makes a binding decision."
+== Origins ==
+In 2011<ref>''American Express v Italian Colors Restaurant'', 133 S. Ct. 2403 (2013); ''AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion'', 131 S.
+Ct. 1740 (2011).</ref> and 2013<ref>{{Cite web |date=Apr 16, 2019 |title=Fact Sheet: Cases Tossed Out of Court Because of Forced Arbitration Causes and Class Action Bans |url=https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn1 |access-date=Feb 12, 2026 |website=Center for Justice & Democracy at New York Law School}}</ref> cases received rulings from the ''Supreme Court of the United States'' wherein corporations can strip individuals of their constitutional right to civil jury trial and force them into private, corporate-controlled arbitration systems to resolve disputes. These rulings also stated that companies have the unilateral right to ban class actions by inserting class action “waivers” into these arbitration clauses.
+In 2018, the scope of these decisions were expanded by ''Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis'',<ref>''Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis'', 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018).</ref> wherein workers whose employment contracts contain class action waivers was decided to not violate legal rights granted to workers by the ''National Labor Relations Act''. This decision impacted millions of employment contracts,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=Oct 2, 2017 |title=Supreme Court Divided on Arbitration for Workplace Cases |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/politics/supreme-court-workplace-arbitration.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.is/gd5bQ |archive-date=Feb 12, 2026 |access-date=Feb 12, 2026 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> and analysis by the ''National Law Journal'' has shown that the employment cases, most of which were class actions, “broke in favor of the defendant.” At least 50% of these cases compelled plaintiffs to arbitrate.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mulvaney |first=Erin |date=Feb 28, 2019 |title='Epic' Impact: How a Major SCOTUS Decision in Favor of Arbitration Is Shaping the Landscape for Workplace Lawsuits |url=https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/02/28/epic-impact-how-a-major-scotus-decision-in-favor-of-arbitration-is-shaping-the-landscape-for-workplace-lawsuits/?slreturn=20260212061628 |journal=National Law Journal |via=Law.com}}</ref> <!-- Something something, objectively connect it to how it may have influenced corporations into abusing these measures in their own EULAs -->
 ==How it works==
@@ Line 50: / Line 57: @@
 *Zenimax Media (Bethesda) has an arbitration agreement that can only be opted out of within 30 days, ''by mail''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=ZeniMax Terms of Service |url=https://www.zenimax.com/en/legal/terms-of-service |access-date=2025-05-31 |website=ZeniMax Media}}</ref>
 *[[Zoom]]'s Terms of Service, Section 27.1, says: "You and Zoom agree that any dispute or claim between you and Zoom arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the Services (a “Dispute”), including any related software, hardware, integrations, advertising or marketing communications, your account, or any aspects of your relationship or transactions with Zoom, will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court."<ref>{{Cite web |date=11 Aug 2023 |title=Zoom Terms of Service |url=https://www.zoom.com/it/trust/terms/?cms_guid=false&lang=null |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=[[Zoom]]}}</ref>
+== Legal cases<!-- Want to add more? this baby is chalk full of them! https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn4 --> ==
+Many cases, often class actions, were turned away because of forced arbitration clauses, below is an incomplete list of consumer protection cases shut down by forced arbitraton.<!-- As always, please ensure chronological organization! -->
+{| class="wikitable"
+|+
+!Case name
+!Year
+!Summary
+!Related article
+|-
+|'''''Clemins v. GE Money Bank, No. 11-CV-00210, 2012 WL 5868659'''''
+|2012
+|[TBA]
+|
+|-
+|'''''Jabbari v. Wells Fargo & Co.'', No. 15-CV-02159-VC (N.D. Cal. 2017).'''
+|2017
+|<!-- Direct copy/paste, PLEASE make sure to revise with original wording! -->In 2017, Wells Fargo settled with many of its customers whose credit scores were harmed after thousands of bank employees opened as many as 3.5 million fake checking and credit card accounts in customers’ names to meet the company’s aggressive sales goals. Yet for years, the company had forced complaining customers into arbitration and just a few months before the bank agreed to settle this case, it tried to kill the case by forcing defrauded customers to arbitrate.<!-- https://money.cnn.com/2017/03/29/investing/wells-fargo-settles-fake-account-lawsuit-110-million/index.html
+https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/25/investing/wells-fargo-lawsuit-forced-arbitration/?iid=EL -->
+|
+|-
+|'''''G.G. v. Valve Corp., No. 2:16cv01941, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50640'''''
+|2017
+|[TBA] - Lawsuit against valve over CS:GO loot boxes being gambling, compelled into arbitration
+|
+|-
+|'''''Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA'', 889 F.3d 1230'''
+|2018
+|From 2008 to 2009 across various class actions, Wells Fargo was abusing its forced arbitration clause to combat legal cases wherein the company unlawfully charged overdraft fees.
+|
+|-
+|'''''DeNicolo v. The Hertz Corp'', No. 19-210'''
+|2019
+|[TBA]<!-- https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans
+Top of "Rentals Cars/Automobiles"
+https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn11
+ -->
+|
+|}
 ==References==