SSRN: Marks: The Irony of AT&T v. Concepcion

By Don Philbin, September 26, 2011   
This post has been viewed 1,667 times.

 

SSRN: Marks: The Irony of AT&T v. Concepcion goo.gl/2FjLu

Read original article


Tags: ,




Related Posts

What Constitutes Arbitration for Federal Arbitration Act Purposes?
June 24, 2014

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16, codifies the federal policy of enforcing arbitration agreements....


Judge Posner Sarcastically Applauds ‘New Form of Arbitration’ After Garner’s Expert Evaluates Tiff
May 22, 2014

Legal Times published Posner’s response in a second article. “Please convey my congratulations to Bryan Garner on inventing...


Rethinking the Arbitration Clause
May 19, 2014

We’ve discussed the ins and outs of arbitration at length previously.  I’ve spent the last few years in a number of arbitration...


 


1 Comment

Victoria Pynchon

The true irony, of course, is when consumer services giants complain that they’re being unfairly targeted for abuse when consumer attorneys file thousands of individual consumer suits in arbitration, complaining of bullying by consumers who appreciate the burden of having to pay arbitration fees and defend each case separately. Beware of getting what you want!

Reply



What do you think?

Discussion is central to our goals at ADR Toolbox. If you have a minute, please share your thoughts on the article above and contribute to the conversation.





 

«
»






 
Menu Title
Bitnami