Bipartisan Bill Would End Mandatory Arbitration Agreements, But Only for Service Members

Mandatory arbitration agreements have hit the news. Consumers and lawmakers alike are becoming aware of the abuses happening in the collections industry that have been covered up by the arbitration process. Now federal legislators have proposed a bill that would protect consumers' right to court, but only for service members.

Mandatory arbitration agreements show up in everything from mortgage contracts to credit cards agreements. They require consumers to submit any dispute – from billing to illegal collections processes – to private arbitration, rather than going to court.

Large corporations like cell phone companies and collections agencies use mandatory arbitration agreements to cover over a multitude of sins. Often arbitrators are chosen, and paid, by the corporations. That can make it difficult for the lawyer-arbitrators to be neutral and independent.

Other times, the harm done to an individual, and their potential for recovery, are not large enough to justify the cost of preparing for and attending arbitration with an attorney. When consumers try to use a class-action lawsuit to correct the company's poor business practices, mandatory arbitration provisions can destroy the suit before it even begins.

Now legislators on both sides of the political spectrum are recognizing the problem with mandatory arbitration agreements. Democratic senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have teamed up to co-sponsor a bill that would allow consumers to opt out of arbitration and challenge repossessions or foreclosures in court.

But only for service members.

The bill would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to make arbitration agreements signed before a dispute arises invalid and unenforceable. Senator Reed told the New York Times:

“Often service members sign contracts that include arbitration clauses buried in the fine print, and this eliminates their access to the courts, which can limit their ability to assert their rights and reach a fair resolution.”

All of that is true. But it is just as true for civilian citizens as servicemen and women. There is nothing about serving in the nation's military that makes soldiers more or less susceptible to the tactics of the collections industry.

Commentators do not believe Senate Bill 2331 is likely to become law. It was referred to committee on November 19, 2015, but is unlikely to succeed there. If the purpose of this bill was publicity of the issue, rather than passage, there is no reason the bill's sponsors could not have called for protections for all Americans, not just service members. At best, this bill will represent an incremental improvement in a system that will need further reform before it provides adequate consumer protection.

Dani K. Liblang is a consumer protection attorney at The Liblang Law Firm, P.C. She defends consumer against harassment by collections companies. If you or someone you know is facing a collections action, contact The Liblang Law Firm, P.C., for a free consultation.