The Arbitration Web Ensnaring Every Consumer: The Next Evolution in Corporate Strategy to Compel Arbitration

This first-of-its-kind Article uses a novel hypothetical to explore the expanding role of compelled arbitration. The hypothetical involves numerous large corporations agreeing to cross-reference each other in their arbitration agreements, thus attempting to create a massive arbitration web ensnaring nearly every American and allowing corporations to compel arbitration against parties with whom they never interacted. This Article presents the case that courts might enforce such a scheme based on the judicial trend toward ever-expanding compelled arbitration jurisprudence, the docket-clearing incentives faced by judges, existing case law allowing some non-signatories to enforce arbitration agreements, the strong assumption in favor of arbitration, and the reality of how arbitrators are allowed to determine the arbitrability of a dispute. This analysis reveals significant concerns about fairness, transparency, and access to justice, as arbitration clauses increasingly favor corporate interests over individual rights.

The Article also considers the broader societal implications of continuing the expansive nature of compelled arbitration, including reduced accountability, the ability of corporations to keep dubious practices secret, the reduction in legal precedent, and erosion of trust in the legal system. This Article concludes by providing potential solutions, including legislative reform, judicial restraint, and consumer advocacy group involvement to recalibrate the balance between efficiency and justice.