In recent decades, the American legal landscape has seen a marked shift toward arbitration. Originally intended as an efficient and cost-effective alternative to litigation, arbitration has increasingly become a tool by which big corporations channel disputes away from public courts and into private forums. While vigorous efforts have been made to push the courts to interpret the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) with an increasingly broad preemptive scope, effectively overriding state laws designed to regulate arbitration, recent decisions underscore that courts are not willing to uphold arbitration agreements when fairness and justice might be compromised. Legitimate concerns surrounding arbitration are prompting more judicial scrutiny—a trend worth examining.

The Alternate System of Justice


Arbitration represents a fundamental departure from the public adjudication system, namely, the right to trial by jury of one’s peers. In traditional litigation, disputes are resolved in open courtrooms, with judicial opinions forming part of the public record. The transparency of the process promotes accountability and the consistent development of legal precedent. Arbitration, however, is private: outcomes are typically confidential, and arbitrators are not bound to follow precedent.