Businesses cite arbitration as a way to avoid aberrant jury verdicts, implicitly if not explicitly assuming that arbitrators make "better" decisions than juries. By contrast, consumer advocates criticize arbitration as a way for businesses to avoid paying damages to deserving claimants, effectively assuming that juries make better decisions than arbitrators. These conflicting perspectives pose an important question in the debate over predispute arbitration clauses in consumer contracts: How do decisions by arbitrators compare to decisions by juries?

Included in

Law Commons