United States: Use TACT: The Arbitration Alternative

In April 2014, the media ignited a firestorm of controversy over General Mills' decision to modify its online Privacy Policy and Legal Terms to include a mandatory arbitration provision. The proviso required consumers who downloaded or printed coupons, "joined an online community," subscribed to an e-mail newsletter, redeemed a promotion, or participated in any "offering" to forego their right to sue the company in court and instead submit to private, binding arbitration to resolve any disputes with the company. In the face of the outcry over this policy change, the company reversed course and restored its prior legal terms, which contained no mention of arbitration.

The media's vilification of the policy change once again brings to the forefront the tension and competing interests between class action litigation and the freedom to contract to arbitrate. This tension has existed since the Federal Arbitration Act was enacted in 1925 and, much to the chagrin of class action litigation proponents, the expansive reach of mandatory arbitration has gained a strong foothold in recent years, due to the overwhelmingly pro-arbitration precedent established by the Supreme Court in its Concepcion and Italian Colors decisions, which express a clear federal policy in favor of enforcing class action waivers contained in arbitration agreements.

Public perception of mandatory arbitration provisions is unquestionably negative. Detractors of this method of dispute resolution largely deride it as an "anti-consumer" practice that allows big corporations to escape all liability by unconscionably and covertly tricking unsuspecting, unsophisticated consumers into clicking away their federally protected legal rights. The mandatory arbitration system is also criticized for establishing a climate where large groups of consumers cannot seek redress for small claims because the individualized nature of the proceedings makes it prohibitively expensive to seek relief.

Yet, an examination of the present consumer class action litigation system reveals its numerous failings, namely that the current structure often results in little or no relief to class members while providing exorbitant compensation to the attorneys involved. Literature on the subject also reveals that the vast majority of consumer class actions simply do not provide a monetary benefit to class members whose interests the system is designed to protect, especially where the members cannot be identified. If implemented properly, mandatory arbitration may actually provide a better mechanism for advancing and protecting consumer rights for legitimate small claims than class action litigation. It is critical for practitioners counseling corporations on this issue to advise their clients that they must use "TACT" (Transparency, Agreed-upon terms, Clarity about costs, and Thoroughness) when enacting arbitration policies.

FAA and the Supreme Court's Pro-Arbitration Progeny

Prior to the enactment of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in 1925, arbitration agreements were met with hostility by the United States judiciary and courts generally refused to enforce such agreements. The FAA, however, ushered in a new era in which arbitration agreements are considered to be presumptively enforceable (so long as the parties have contracted fairly), thus putting agreements to arbitrate on equal footing with other contracts.

In the years following the FAA's passage, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the FAA and, in the recent landmark decisions, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) and Am. Exp. Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013), the Court has further solidified its pro-arbitration stance by determining that the FAA expresses a clear federal policy in favor of enforcing class action waivers contained in arbitration agreements.

In Concepcion , the Court struck down a California common law rule that invalidated class waivers in consumer arbitration agreements (including contracts of adhesion) as unconscionable because the rule conflicted with the pro-arbitration policy of the FAA. Two years later, the Court continued its pattern of enforcing arbitration agreements according to their terms in the Italian Colors decision. In that case, the Court held that a class action waiver contained in an arbitration agreement was enforceable even though the plaintiffs showed that the waiver effectively prevented them from bringing their federal antitrust claims because litigating the claims individually would be prohibitively expensive.

The clear presumption of enforceability of arbitration clauses propounded by the Supreme Court has raised serious concerns about the use of class waivers by corporations in form contracts because such waivers have the potential to insulate corporations from virtually all liability for actions that allegedly create small harm to large groups of consumers.

Failings of the Class Action Litigation System

Class action litigation serves two primary purposes. First, as a matter of economic efficiency, it provides a mechanism for large numbers of consumers who have suffered similar small harms to aggregate their claims where the cost of litigation outweighs the potential recovery to individual consumers. Second, pursuant to the notice requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) actions, the device benefits society as a whole by alerting consumers to potential, small-scale injuries that they may have suffered, and opening up a discourse about the legal relief available to these consumers.

While the individual, privatized nature of mandatory arbitration and the Supreme Court's enforcement of class action waivers in arbitration agreements appear to thwart the very important principles underlying class action litigation, existing literature on the subject reveals that, all too often, the consumer class action mechanism simply does not deliver meaningful benefits or relief to class members.

Literature on consumer class action lawsuits reveals that, in those cases that do result in settlement, the recoveries achieved for the class are minimal. See Ronald J. Levine and Sharon A. O'Shaughnessy, Class Actions: Where's the Beef? LJN's Product Liability Law and Strategy, Vol. 32, No. 1 (July 2013) (available at http://bit.ly/1vCQByq). 

This is especially true in consumer class action settlements in which there are no records of the names and addresses of the consumers and where the individual payments are relatively low. It is difficult to advise a consumer public that settlement has been reached, especially where there are unregistered purchases, and even if consumers are aware of the settlement, it is questionable whether a consumer will go to the effort of filling out the claims forms.

While class action settlements often leave class members with awards of little or no value, the current structure of the system frequently results in a monetary windfall to class counsel. Although class action settlements are judicially scrutinized to ensure procedural and substantive fairness (due to the fact that class members are bound by them), the scarce publicly available data discussing how much cash relief class members receive post-settlement paints a disturbing picture: Often, attorney fees are approved without an inquiry as to the actual value of class recovery, and while plaintiffs' lawyers are well-compensated (often in the millions of dollars), only a small percentage of settlement awards actually goes to consumer class members, and only a small fraction of the class may take home any cash relief.

These findings confirm what critics of the class action litigation device have long suspected: The vast majority of consumer class actions where members cannot be identified simply do not benefit class members whose interests the system is designed to protect.

The Virtues of Consumer Arbitration

General Mills' implementation of its mandatory arbitration policy was attacked by the media as an attempt to trick consumers into forfeiting their legal rights by the mere act of interacting with the company's brands online. The method by which the company rolled out the policy detracted from the fact that, in practice, the company's mandatory arbitration policy was actually quite generous to consumers and had the potential to provide meaningful relief to consumers with small claims.  

In the ensuing media storm, detractors of mandatory arbitration seized upon the opportunity to criticize the arbitration process. While it is true that arbitration reduces procedural rights such as appeals and jury trials, and immunizes large companies from public proceedings due to its private nature, the benefits of arbitration can far outweigh the downsides in the consumer context. If properly executed, arbitration may actually provide a better mechanism for advancing and protecting consumer rights for small claims than class action litigation.

In practice, the arbitration forum is an efficient, streamlined mechanism for pursuing small fee claims that has the potential to be far more advantageous to consumers than class action litigation for six distinct reasons.  

First, in light of the abysmal monetary relief that is awarded to individual consumers when a consumer class action with unidentified members actually results in a settlement, consumers have a higher likelihood of garnering real, tangible benefits through arbitration.

Second, despite public perception to the contrary, the arbitration process actually does provide robust protections to consumers' due process rights. For example, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) has a "Consumer Due Process Protocol" in place that requires corporations' arbitration agreements to comply with certain notice and process requirements. If an arbitration agreement does not comply with the Consumer Due Process Protocol, the AAA will provide the company with an opportunity to revise the clause. If an arbitration containing a non-compliant arbitration clause is filed, the AAA will return the arbitration filing information to the consumer with instructions to pursue other remedies and will refuse to administer any of the company's other cases until the arbitration agreement is in compliance. JAMS has also enacted a "Policy on Consumer Arbitrations Pursuant to Pre-Dispute Clauses Minimum Standards of Procedural Fairness."

Third, arbitration is cost-effective. Many corporations will actually pay all arbitration fees for claims that fall below certain monetary thresholds. For example, General Mills, in its mandatory arbitration policy, offered to pay all fees for consumer claims totaling less than $5,000.  

Fourth, arbitration provides much more autonomy to consumers. While class actions are binding on class members, oftentimes consumers have the ability to opt out of arbitration clauses and may instead pursue their claims in local small claims court, provided the claim meets the court's jurisdictional limits.

Fifth, arbitration is a much more expeditious process than class action litigation, which can often take years.  

Finally, there is less red tape involved in arbitration and often it is not even necessary for attorneys to be involved.

Use 'TACT'

The backlash that General Mills endured from the media over the implementation of its mandatory arbitration policy provides a teachable moment for all practitioners who counsel large companies that are considering utilizing mandatory arbitration procedures. When enacting policies for resolving consumer fee claims, practitioners must advise their clients to use TACT in implementing all arbitration agreements:  

Transparency: Broadcast the policy. State the policy clearly and visibly, and disseminate its terms far and wide.  

Agreed-Upon Terms: Corporations should capture clear evidence of agreement to avoid an enforceability challenge down the line. For instance, if a corporation revises its online legal terms to include an arbitration clause, it is a best practice for consumers to agree to the clause through electronic signature.  

Clarity About Costs: Corporations should make painstaking efforts to communicate their arbitration fee policies explicitly, especially if the policy will cover a consumer's arbitration costs.  

Thoroughness: The agreement should: 1) include a class action waiver; 2) ensure that the arbitration clause complies with AAA's and JAMS' due process protocols; and 3) emphasize the benefits of arbitration and highlight its expeditiousness, cost-effectiveness, consumers' ability to opt out, and the higher likelihood of obtaining relief.  

In addition to ensuring that any consumer arbitration agreement meets the foregoing standards, it is also prudent for practitioners to counsel their corporate clients to implement further procedural safeguards in an effort to avoid getting embroiled in class action litigation. These procedures include settling risky individual lawsuits that have the potential to develop into class actions, implementing a system to isolate and monitor unorthodox customer requests or complaints to determine if the consumer is working with class counsel to create documentation for a lawsuit, and tracking pending class actions that have been initiated against similar companies in the industry.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions