When it comes to consumer protection, signing off on the fine print may equate to signing off certain legal rights and agreeing not to sue a company in court but rather to use arbitration. Does the process actually matter? Several studies find variances in consumer financial relief and win rates, along with potential incentives in mandatory arbitration that could discredit the integrity of the process. The latest “Proof Over Precedent” episode calls for new research to address the shortcomings of existing studies and to provide definitive findings on mandatory arbitration’s impact on consumers.
Read the corresponding blog post.
Speakers:
- Rachel Barkin, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School
- Spencer Thieme, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School
Resources mentioned:
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) study
- U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform study
- Colvin and Gough study
- Egan, Matvos, and Seru Study
Share feedback and relevant topics you would like the A2J Lab to discuss: a2jlab@law.harvard.edu
Stay connected with the Access to Justice Lab:
Proof Over Precedent cover art by Courtney Chrystal