How the Supreme Court’s Misconstruction of the FAA Has Affected Consumers

Professor Margaret L. Moses, Director of the International Law and Practice Program at the Loyola University Chicago School of Law, has published “How the Supreme Court’s Misconstruction of the FAA Has Affected Consumers,” Forthcoming, Loyola Consumer Law Review, Vol 30, 2017.  In her journal article, Professor Moses claims the Federal Arbitration Act was not intended to be construed broadly enough to affect consumer and employment contracts.

Here is the abstract:

Neither the drafters of the Federal Arbitration Act nor the Congress that adopted it intended for it to cover consumers or workers or displace state jurisdiction or state substantive law. The FAA was simply intended to provide a means for resolving disputes among commercial entities that might voluntarily choose to forego their rights to have their disputes settled in court, in favor of what they deemed to be a simpler and more efficient means of dispute resolution. That point, which is entirely beyond dispute, has been lost on the Supreme Court. In a series of cases over the past fifty years, the Court, seemingly more concerned with diminishing the size of judicial caseloads or with ensuring certain substantive policy outcomes than with satisfying its obligation to give effect to congressional intent, has made the FAA a cornerstone of its efforts to circumscribe the rights of workers and consumers and nullify the policy choices of state legislators acting within the legitimate sphere of state policy-making. This article explains how this result came about, and how it has trampled consumer rights.

This and other publications written by Professor Moses are available for download from the Social Science Research Network.

Do you agree or disagree with Professor Moses? We would love to hear your thoughts!

Photo credit: Foter.com