Bibliography of Law Review Articles on Binding Mandatory Arbitration

Bibliography of Law Review Articles on Binding Mandatory Arbitration

Alderman, Richard M., Pre-Dispute Mandatory Arbitration in Consumer Contracts: A Call for Reform, 38 Houston L. Rev. 1237, 1263 (2001).

Alderman, Richard M., The Future of Consumer Law in the United States - Hello Arbitration, Bye-Bye Courts, So-Long Consumer Protection, U. of Houston Law Center No. 2007-W-02, (September 19, 2007), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1015517.

Budnitz, Mark E., Arbitration of Disputes between Consumers and Financial Institutions: A Serious Threat to Consumer Protection, 10 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 267, 285–86, 339 (1995).

Burch, Thomas, Necessity Never Made a Good Bargain: When Consumer Arbitration Agreements Prohibit Class Relief, 31 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1005, 1028 (2004).

Cappalli, Richard B., Arbitration of Consumer Claims: The Sad Case of Two-Time Victim Terry Johnson or Where Have You Gone Learned Hand?, 10 BU. Pub. Int. L. J. 366, 400–01 (2001).

Demaine, Linda J. and Deborah R. Hensler, “Volunteering” to Arbitrate Through Predispute Arbitration Clauses: The Average Consumer’s Experience, 67 Law & Contemp. Probs. 55 (2004), available at http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/67LCPDemaine.

Dunham, Edward Wood, The Arbitration Clause as Class Action Shield, 16 Franchise L. J. 141, 142 (1997).

Feingold, Russell D., Mandatory Arbitration: What Process is Due?, 39 Harv. J. on Legis. 281, 284 (2002).

Gilles, Myriam, Opting Out of Liability: The Forthcoming Near-Total Demise of the Modern Class Action, 30 Cardozo L. Sch. Working Paper No. 100 (2004).

Malin, Martin, Privatizing Justice—But By How Much? Questions Gilmer Did Not Answer, 16 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 589, 592 (2001).

Moses, Margaret L., Privatized “Justice”, 36 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 536 (2005).

Moses, Margaret L., Statutory Misconstruction: How the Supreme Court Created a Federal Arbitration Law Never Enacted by Congress, 34 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 99 (2006).

Reuben, Richard C., The Dark Side of ADR, Cal. Law., at 53 (February 1994).

Reuben, Richard C., Democracy and Dispute Resolution: The Problem of Arbitration, 67 Law & Contemp. Probs. 279 (Winter/Spring 2004).

Scarpino, Julia A.,   Mandatory Arbitration of Consumer Disputes: A Proposal to Ease the Financial Burden on Low-Income Consumers, 10 AM. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y and L. 679, 680 (2002).

Schwartz, David S., Enforcing Small Print to Protect Big Business: Employee and Consumer Rights Claims in an Age of Compelled Arbitration, Wis. L. Rev. 33 (1997).

Schwartz, David S., Correcting Federalism Mistakes in Statutory Interpretation: The Supreme Court and the Federal Arbitration Act, 67 Law & Contemp. Probs. 5 (Winter/Spring 2004).

Siegel, Andrew M., The Court Against the Courts: Hostility to Litigation as an Organizing Theme in the Rehnquist Court’s Jurisprudence, 84 Texas Law Review 1097 (April 2006).

Smith, Shelly, Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Contracts: Consumer Protection and the Circumvention of the Judicial System, 50 DePaul L. Rev. 1191, 1234 (2001).

Speidel, Richard E., Consumer Arbitration of Statutory Claims: Has Pre-Dispute (Mandatory) Arbitration Outlived Its Welcome?, 40 Ariz. L. Rev. 1069, 1092 (1998).

Sternlight, Jean, Panacea or Corporate Tool?: Debunking the Supreme Court’s Preference for Binding Arbitration, 74 Wash. U. L. Q. 637, 692 (1996).

Sternlight, Jean R., Rethinking the Constitutionality of the Supreme Court’s Preference for Binding Arbitration: A Fresh Assessment of Jury Trial, Separation of Powers, and Due Process Concerns, 72 Tulane Law Review 1 (November 1997).

Sternlight, Jean R., As Mandatory Binding Arbitration Meets the Class Action, Will the Class Action Survive?, 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1 (2000).

Sternlight, Jean R., Mandatory Binding Arbitration and the Demise of the Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial, 16 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 669 (2001).

Sternlight, Jean R., Is the U.S. Out on a Limb? Comparing the U.S. Approach to Mandatory Consumer and Employment Arbitration to that of the Rest of the World, 56 U. Miami L. Rev. 831 (2002).

Sternlight, Jean R., Should an Arbitration Provision Trump the Class Action? No: Permitting Companies to Skirt Class Actions Through Mandatory Arbitration Would Be Dangerous and Unwise, Disp. Resol. Mag., at 13 (Spring 2002).

Sternlight, Jean R., The Rise and Spread of Mandatory Arbitration as a Substitute for the Jury Trial, 38 U.S.F. L. Rev. 17, 35-38 (2003).

Sternlight, Jean R. and Elizabeth J. Jensen, Using Arbitration to Eliminate Consumer Class Actions: Efficient Business Practice of Unconscionable Abuse?, 67 Law & Contemp. Probs. 75 (2004).

Sternlight, Jean R., Creeping Mandatory Arbitration: Is it Just?, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 1631, 1649 (2005).

Weiner, Eric, Even in Victory: Darcy Ting Defeated AT&T, Yet the Consumer-At-Large Again Has Lost, 4 Cardozo Online J. of Conflict Resol. 1 (2002) available at http://www.cardozojcr.com/vol4no1/notes02.html.

Wilson, Jack, “No-Class-Action Arbitration Clauses,” State-Law Unconscionability, and the Federal Arbitration Act: A Case for Federal Judicial Restraint and Congressional Action, 23 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 737, 773 (2004).

The Supreme Court, 2002 Term: Leading Cases, Federal Statutes and Regulations, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 390, 410-20 (2003).

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.