The Hill published an Op-Ed by Professor Imre Szalai November 6th on the subject of forced arbitration, titled American Hustle: The Con(stitutionality) of Forced Arbitration. His piece was among several responses to a New York Times series on arbitration. While the New York Times series did highlight how companies use compulsory arbitration clauses to undermine the rights of consumers, Szalai says they did not “go far enough to convey how problematic forced arbitration is. And in other respects, these articles go too far and fail to recognize the potential value of arbitration.” Szalai goes on to say that “as a result of recent, flawed, pro-business Supreme Court decisions, courts routinely enforce such agreements, despite the existence of one-sided provisions which unfairly tilt the playing field in favor of the stronger party.”
Professor Szalai was also featured in another response to the Times’ series by Forbes Magazine. Their piece argues that the New York Times was too simplistic and “largely ignored the wealthy special-interest group that opposes arbitration the most: Class-action lawyers.” While the arbitration system is being abused, Szalai is quoted saying “A robust system of arbitration is healthy for our court system,” providing a venue for meaningful relief for low-dollar disputes that cannot be realistically provided by conventional lawsuits.