{
  "id": "R44960",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44960",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 466098,
      "date": "2017-09-20",
      "retrieved": "2017-10-02T22:16:06.736427",
      "title": "Mandatory Arbitration and the Federal Arbitration Act",
      "summary": "Arbitration is a method of legal dispute resolution in which a neutral, private third party, rather than a judge or jury, renders a decision on a particular matter. Under a growing number of consumer and employment agreements, companies have come to require arbitration to resolve disputes. While arbitration is often viewed as an expeditious and economical alternative to litigation, consumer advocates and others contend that mandatory arbitration agreements create one-sided arrangements that deny consumers and employees advantages afforded by a judicial proceeding.\nThe Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was enacted in 1925 to ensure the validity and enforcement of arbitration agreements in any \u201cmaritime transaction or ... contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce[.]\u201d The U.S. Supreme Court (Court) has recognized the FAA as evidencing \u201ca national policy favoring arbitration.\u201d The application of the FAA, however, particularly in light of various state law requirements and the use of different types of arbitration agreements, has raised numerous legal questions and been the subject of several cases before the Court.\nThe question of whether the FAA preempts a state law or judicial rule is a subject of frequent litigation. In these cases, the Court has routinely held that the FAA supersedes state requirements that restrain the enforceability of mandatory arbitration agreements. This report examines the FAA and reviews the Court\u2019s decisions involving the statute\u2019s preemption of state law requirements. The report also explores the Court\u2019s decisions involving mandatory arbitration agreements that prohibit a consumer or employee from maintaining a class or collective action. In its October 2017 term, the Court will consider three consolidated cases that challenge such agreements on the grounds that they violate the right to engage in \u201cother concerted activities\u201d under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).\nFinally, concern over a perceived lack of \u201cmeaningful choice\u201d to decide whether to submit a claim to arbitration has prompted regulatory activity, as well as legislation that would amend the FAA to render certain types of pre-dispute arbitration agreements unenforceable. The report discusses some recent examples of federal regulatory action that aim to restrict the use of mandatory arbitration in the consumer arena, and reviews bills like the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2017 (H.R. 1374/S. 537), which would prohibit the enforcement of an arbitration agreement that requires arbitration for an employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights dispute if the agreement was executed prior to the dispute\u2019s occurrence.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44960",
          "sha1": "5089609599bb11172cfacd7fff2c66186237d595",
          "filename": "files/20170920_R44960_5089609599bb11172cfacd7fff2c66186237d595.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44960",
          "sha1": "5b296532b5165e8d45b8368510ddcdbd96fe2756",
          "filename": "files/20170920_R44960_5b296532b5165e8d45b8368510ddcdbd96fe2756.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}