WashingtonWatch.com - S. 1782, The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007

Comment by Lucas (June 30, 2008, 01:00:00)

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

NAF is a scam. 99% of the awards go to business. San Francisco city filed a lawsuit against NAF and Bank of America. This arbitration fraud can not go on. It needs to stop. Best way is the passing of this bill...

Comment by Sandra (February 17, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

I do not support the Arbitration Fairness Act. Arbitrators are more likely to be fair to small consumers than the courts, and lawyers will only take cases if they can make money -- thus, only the bid money cases get resolved. Arbitration is more likely to be an effective remedy than courts. With respect to "public policy" matters like civil rights, those are already exlcuded from arbitration under the existing law. This bill will not promote justice, but will promote more fees for trial lawyers....

Comment by Mary (January 30, 2008, 01:00:00)

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

I just lost in court to vacate an arbitration award from a brokerage firm I worked for where they charged me with legal fees based on an arbitration agreement I signed . Not only were Mo laws broken by the firm but the arbitrator was a liar and I showed proof. No justice at all!...

Comment by Beth (January 22, 2008, 01:00:00)

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

I think it is time we speak up for our rights and should have due process in all courts. What are they going to take away from us next? Binding arbitration written in small print is another way to stick it to us wonderful US citizens. Banks dictate what they want and they seem to get it. Well they aren't looking too godd now are they? :)...

Comment by Gordon (January 16, 2008, 01:00:00)

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

An increasing number of Bank Credit Card companies are adding Arbitration causes to their agreements (you know, the really small print flyers that they stick in with your bill). Since the National Arbitration Forum's (NAF) major support comes from the C.C. Banks, I wonder which party wins the award? Duh! You have no recourse except in court. If you participate in any way, including responding the the NAF that you didn't agree to arbitration, the courts will say you agreed because you participated when you responded. If you agreed to the arbitration (by your participation) even though you claimed you don't agree,the courts will grant the Credit Card company a summary judgment anyway. Reason: The courts aren't that as interested in justice on a credit card issue as they are on not tying up the court. It's an easy way out for the court, and the consumer is assumed to be guilty. So much for justice! It is a gross misuse of justice....

Comment by Gene (January 15, 2008, 01:00:00)

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

As a person in business that deals in contracts, the ability to have predispute arbitration is essential. There are SO many people in the world that believe that business is rich. If those people can find a reason to sue the business, the people could get a big fat check. In my 20+ years of business I find the predator to be the people. Most business that gets sued or a bad rep is from bottom feeding people looking to scam business. The court system (jury trial) is anti business....

Comment by eleanor (January 6, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

I complied with arbitration and paid the award with a subprime mortgage over three years ago. My money has been missing for all this time - my accounts remain deliquent and court refused to enforce compliance with my payment (large sum). Instead, the court sent me back to arbitration where my claims remain unaddressed. Fortunately, I have a pro-bono attorney who works endlessly for me. We have filed a new federal district court claim this time evidencing a false HUD statement for the refinancing. Washington has refused to listen to me. I have been contacting everyone possible for help. No one will help me. Our mighty US legal system - as it once stood - no longer exists. Eleanor...

Comment by Fred (December 12, 2007, 01:00:00)

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST

Small businesses are also impacted by the ability to append arbitration to their contracts. In a legal environment where settlements, and/or judicial awards have gotten way out of the realm of reality, small and large businesses have to be protected....

Status as of December 12, 2007

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST

12/12/2007: Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Subcommittee on the Constitution. Date of scheduled hearing. SD-226. 9:30 a.m.

Revision by webmaster (December 11, 2007, 01:00:00)

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST

S. 1782 would amend chapter 1 of title 9 of United States Code with respect to arbitration.

Detailed Summary

Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 - Declares that no predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable if it requires arbitration of: (1) an employment, consumer, or franchise dispute, or (2) a dispute arising under any statute intended to protect civil rights or to regulate contracts or transactions between parties of unequal bargaining power.

Declares, further, that the validity or enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate shall be determined by a court, under federal law, rather than an arbitrator, irrespective of whether the party resisting arbitration challenges the arbitration agreement specifically or in conjunction with other terms of the contract containing such agreement.

Exempts arbitration provisions in collective bargaining agreements from this Act.

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 12/12/2007: Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Subcommittee on the Constitution. Date of scheduled hearing. SD-226. 9:30 a.m.

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Comment by Al (November 26, 2007, 01:00:00)

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:00:00 EST

Forced signature on arbitration agreements to do business with a company/corporation with the complicity of government and the courts is proof positive that both the government and courts are wholly owned subsidaries of corporate america....

Comment by Cindy (October 29, 2007, 01:00:00)

Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:00:00 EDT

I support the Arbitration Fairness Act. The original intent of the Fed. Arbitration Act needs to be restored. Customers are not at equal strength and do not do repeat business with arbitrators. Corporations do. Arbitration keeps numerous complaints out of public record, which means other consumers can't make informed decisions when they do their research before buying. If arbitration was so great consumers would voluntarily agree to it and not have to be forced. If you want to buy a car, house, computer, software, sports event ticket, go into a nursing home, get medical care, etc, you are almost certainly going to have to agree to arbitration or do without. People who think it's optional haven't been following what's going on....

Revision by webmaster (July 27, 2007, 01:00:00)

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:00:00 EDT

S. 1782 would amend chapter 1 of title 9 of United States Code with respect to arbitration.

Detailed Summary

Exempts arbitration provisions in collective bargaining agreements from this Act.

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 7/12/2007: Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Revision by webmaster (July 13, 2007, 01:00:00)

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:00:00 EDT

S. 1782 would amend chapter 1 of title 9 of United States Code with respect to arbitration.

Detailed Summary

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)

Status of the Legislation

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to update the status of the bill!)

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Revision by webmaster (July 13, 2007, 01:00:00)

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:00:00 EDT

S. 1782 would amend chapter 1 of title 9 of United States Code with respect to arbitration.

Detailed Summary

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 7/12/2007: Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Status as of July 12, 2007

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:00:00 EDT

7/12/2007: Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.