Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)/Arbitration

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to methods and processes of resolving claims without litigation, such as arbitration, mediation, and small claims procedures. ADR can be formal or informal and provides a method to avoid the expense and inefficiency of litigation.

ADR is widely used in the U.S., where empirical studies demonstrate that it is cheaper, faster, and often offers more compensation for the consumer. There are also well-established ADR procedures in many of the EU member states and in other countries around the world.


Arbitration, a form of ADR, is formally authorized by a ninety-plus-year-old U.S. federal law, the Federal Arbitration Act. Arbitration is a procedure used to resolve common disputes and avoid costly and time-consuming courtroom litigation. In arbitration, an independent third party, the arbitrator, reviews the facts and circumstances of the dispute, applies the appropriate legal standard, and issues a ruling to resolve the conflict. For nearly a century, arbitration has reduced the cost of lawsuits for businesses and consumers alike. But now arbitration is under attack by plaintiffs’ lawyers, who see it as a barrier to the expansion of lucrative class action lawsuits.

Class action lawsuits are the Holy Grail for plaintiffs' lawyers, who often pocket millions of dollars in fees, while the class members they represent get little or nothing of the final settlements.  read more...

For many, arbitration is the better way to go. Arbitration produces faster resolutions—typically in a matter of months, as opposed to class actions, which often last years. Arbitration reduces backlogs in our courts a the costs of legal fees for both sides in a dispute.

Given the lucrative nature of litigating class actions, it is not surprising that plaintiffs' lawyers want to eliminate arbitration with an aim towards maximizing litigation and their legal fees. Eliminating arbitration may help plaintiffs' lawyers' bottom line, but it would hurt those seeking timely, efficient, and fair redress through our civil justice system. Eliminating arbitration would lengthen the legal resolution process and channel more money into the hands of trial lawyers rather than individuals seeking compensation.

Moreover, the vast majority of claims resolved through arbitration are not even eligible for class action consideration. The facts in these cases are very individualized and rarely have enough in common to meet class certification standards. Eliminating arbitration would effectively leave consumers with these types of claims without legal recourse, since most of these disputes are over a relatively low dollar amount and would typically cost more to litigate than they are worth. Furthermore, plaintiffs’ lawyers rarely take such small dollar claims.

In other words, if plaintiffs' lawyers succeed in eliminating arbitration, it will drive up the cost of litigation, increase the workload of courts, and leave millions of Americans with very limited opportunities for restitution.

Preserving Arbitration

Legislative measures to limit the use of arbitration have largely been unsuccessful. For example, multiple bills and amendments that would have banned arbitration have been proposed and blocked since the early-2000s. These include the Arbitration Fairness Act (prohibiting arbitration in all consumer and employment agreements) and the Consumer Mobile Fairness Act (prohibiting arbitration in cell phone contracts).

With little success in Congress, arbitration opponents have worked to curtail the practice through the courts and federal regulatory agencies. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the recent cases of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2011) and American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant (2013), has upheld the legal enforceability of arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

However, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released its anti-arbitration study in March 2015, as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. Subsequent to the study, on May 5, 2016, the CFPB issued a proposed rulemaking on arbitration clauses that would inhibit consumers from filing or participating in class action litigation. The rule would also mandate reporting to the CFPB of arbitration claims and awards. This dangerous rule proposal was open for public comment and now awaits agency action. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the SEC to prohibit or restrict arbitration requirements for both broker-dealers and investment advisers, but the agency has yet to take action on the issue. Other agencies such as the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education have also proposed or finalized their own anti-arbitration and pro-class action litigation rules in recent months.

Due to the clear advantages of arbitration over litigation in any number of situations, and the need to preserve this important dispute resolution process, ILR has established the Coalition to Preserve Arbitration. The Coalition's membership is varied and broad. AT&T is one member of the Coalition and has provided legal and technical support on an in-kind basis in connection with our arbitration-related activities. This disclosure is being made to comply with the requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.


The Trial Lawyer Underground: Covertly Lobbying the Executive Branch

September 30, 2015 | This report highlights examples of the quiet and effective influence the American Association for Justice, the organization that lobbies on behalf of the plaintiffs' bar, exerts within the Executive Branch.

All Results for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)/Arbitration

Report: Securities Lawsuits Filed at "Record Pace" in 2017

January 29, 2018 | News and Blog

A NERA Economic Consulting report found "an explosion" of securities of securities lawsuits, which were filed at a "record pace" in 2017, reports D&O Diary. Read More »

In the News Today - December 14, 2017

December 14, 2017 | News and Blog

9th Circuit Strikes Constitutional Challenge to the Arbitration Act; Growth in class actions to come under scrutiny Read More »

CFPB Anti-Arbitration Rule Officially Repealed

November 02, 2017 | News and Blog

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's anti-arbitration rule has been officially repealed, Reuters reports. Read More »

In the News Today - October 10, 2017

October 10, 2017 | News and Blog

Are shareholders the real losers from class actions?; New Report Shows Class Actions Hurt Consumers. But We Already Knew That. Read More »

In the News Today - August 14, 2017

August 14, 2017 | News and Blog

Republicans for Richard Cordray: The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board published their view on the Congressional Review Act that would repeal the CFPB's anti-arbitration rule. The editorial singled out the Trump administration for not firing CFPB Director Cordray, as well as Republican Senators like Lindsey Graham as major roadblocks holding up the legislation. Read More »

CFPB's Anti-Arbitration Rule Hurts Consumers

August 04, 2017 | News and Blog

Despite using its own data to craft its anti-arbitration rule, the CFPB "paints an incomplete picture of how arbitration compares to class action suits," says the American Action Forum. Read More »

GOP Lawmakers Introduce Measures to Repeal CFPB Rule

July 21, 2017 | News and Blog

More than a dozen Republican senators, including most GOP members of the Senate Banking Committee, introduced a resolution Thursday morning to repeal the CFPB rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), writes the Hill. Read More »

Supreme Court Urged to Enforce Class-Action Waivers in Workplace Arbitration

June 12, 2017 | News and Blog

Several companies urged the U.S. Supreme Court last week to enforce class-action waivers in workplace arbitration agreements, writes Reuters. Read More »

In the News Today - February 27, 2017

February 27, 2017 | News and Blog

The number of class action lawsuits filed in Canada more than doubled in 2016 compared to the year before according to a report from NERA Economic Consulting. Additionally, the report found that a U.S.-listed company is six times more likely to get hit with a securities suit than a Canadian listed company. Read More »

U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on Legality of Workplace Arbitration Agreements

January 17, 2017 | News and Blog

The U.S. Supreme Court justices agreed to take up the dispute over whether workplace arbitration agreements violate federal labor laws writes the National Law Journal. Read More »

  • bulletClick to Narrow Your Results
  • 2017 Legal Reform Summit Recap