This HTML5 document contains 140 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
n17http://dbpedia.org/resource/File:
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n14https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n10http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n15http://info.adr.org/consumer-arbitration/
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Consumer_arbitration
rdf:type
owl:Thing
rdfs:label
Consumer arbitration
rdfs:comment
Disputes between consumers and businesses that are arbitrated are resolved by an independent neutral arbitrator rather than in court. Although parties can agree to arbitrate a particular dispute after it arises or may agree that the award is non-binding, most consumer arbitrations occur pursuant to a pre-dispute arbitration clause where the arbitrator's award is binding. The support given to consumer arbitration under United States law (particularly the Federal Arbitration Act) has been compared to other countries, whose laws restrict or ban consumer arbitration.
rdfs:seeAlso
dbr:Arbitration
foaf:depiction
n10:Antonin_Scalia,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg
dcterms:subject
dbc:Arbitration
dbo:wikiPageID
38595016
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1097421297
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Alabama dbr:Case_law dbr:Arbitration_clause dbr:American_Arbitration_Association dbr:American_Express_Co._v._Italian_Colors_Restaurant dbr:Equal_Pay_Day dbr:Christopher_Drahozal dbr:Richard_A._Nagareda dbr:Gateway,_Inc. dbr:Barbara_Boxer dbr:Arbitration dbr:Convention_on_the_Recognition_and_Enforcement_of_Foreign_Arbitral_Awards dbr:Unconscionability dbr:Cross-examination dbr:United_States_Chamber_of_Commerce dbr:Summary_judgment dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:AT&T_Mobility_v._Concepcion dbr:Alan_Kaplinsky dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_California dbr:Richard_Blumenthal dbr:Netflix dbr:San_Francisco_Chronicle dbr:Jeff_Sessions dbr:Class_action dbr:Barbara_Mikulski dbr:Franchise_Law_Journal dbr:Al_Franken dbr:110th_Congress dbr:Sony dbr:Federal_Rules_of_Evidence dbr:Moses_H._Cone_Mem'l_Hosp._v._Mercury_Constr._Co. dbr:Ross_v._Bank_of_America dbr:Contingent_fee dbr:Selection_bias dbr:Goldberg_v._Kelly dbr:Illinois_Supreme_Court dbr:Jury dbr:Time_Warner_Cable dbr:Federal_Arbitration_Act dbr:Orange_County,_California dbr:Germany dbr:Mazie_Hirono dbr:Institute_for_Legal_Reform dbr:Franchising dbr:Todd_Zywicki dbr:Patrick_Leahy dbr:Republican_Party_(United_States) dbr:Hooters_of_America,_Inc._v._Phillips dbr:Verizon_Wireless dbr:Judy_Chu dbr:California_Supreme_Court dbr:Tammy_Baldwin dbr:Elizabeth_Warren dbr:Second_Life dbr:Precedent dbr:French_Civil_Code dbr:Grandfather_clause dbr:Panama_Convention dbr:Testimony dbr:Lori_Swanson dbr:Standard_form_contract dbr:Hank_Johnson dbr:Mother_Jones_(magazine) dbr:Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act dbr:Ballard_Spahr dbr:San_Francisco,_California dbr:JAMS_(alternative_dispute_resolution) dbr:Maria_Cantwell dbr:Model_Rules_of_Professional_Conduct dbr:Kinkel_v._Cingular_Wireless dbr:John_Conyers dbr:Supreme_Court_of_North_Carolina dbr:Discovery_(law) dbr:Deepak_Gupta_(attorney) dbr:University_of_Kansas_School_of_Law dbr:National_Arbitration_Forum dbr:Microsoft dbr:Jeanne_Shaheen dbr:Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:American_Banker dbr:France dbr:Kirsten_Gillibrand dbr:European_Union dbr:Discover_Bank_v._Superior_Court dbr:Patty_Murray dbr:Consumer_Reports dbr:Pepper_Hamilton dbr:Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau dbr:Small_claims_court dbr:Non-binding_arbitration dbr:Minnesota_Attorney_General dbr:Omaha,_Nebraska dbr:Unauthorized_practice_of_law dbr:Timothy_Jost dbr:Car_dealership dbr:New_York_Court_of_Appeals dbr:Forum_selection_clause dbr:AARP dbr:Santa_Clara_County,_California dbr:Congressional_Review_Act n17:Antonin_Scalia,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg dbr:Common_law dbr:Pound_sterling dbr:Vanderbilt_University_Law_School dbr:Japan dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit dbc:Arbitration dbr:Repeat-player_effect dbr:United_Kingdom dbr:Amicus_curiae dbr:Heidi_Heitkamp dbr:Democratic_Party_(United_States) dbr:Social_networking_website
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n15:
owl:sameAs
n14:4iJrk freebase:m.0r4khz3 wikidata:Q5164687
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:See_also dbt:Main dbt:Quotation dbt:Kirsten_Gillibrand_series dbt:Reflist dbt:Rp dbt:Proper_name dbt:' dbt:Globalize
dbo:thumbnail
n10:Antonin_Scalia,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg?width=300
dbo:abstract
Disputes between consumers and businesses that are arbitrated are resolved by an independent neutral arbitrator rather than in court. Although parties can agree to arbitrate a particular dispute after it arises or may agree that the award is non-binding, most consumer arbitrations occur pursuant to a pre-dispute arbitration clause where the arbitrator's award is binding. In the United States, there is an ongoing debate over the use of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. Differences between arbitration and litigation include the costs of resolving a case, the speed of resolution, and the procedure of resolving a case, including how and where the arbitration is conducted and the availability of discovery. Critics of consumer arbitration say that arbitrators and arbitration administrators can be biased (in part due to the repeat-player effect), arbitration clauses are not conspicuous, and for many classes of consumer goods and services, nearly all providers require arbitration. Proponents of consumer arbitration cite "consumer-friendly" terms that lower the dispute resolution costs of consumers and provide incentives for consumers to bring claims in arbitration. Most arbitration clauses require parties to waive their right to proceed on a class action basis in either court or arbitration, and, in the United States, the debate over consumer arbitration has also featured discussion of the merits of class actions. In 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that state laws that in effect require the availability of class actions to resolve consumer disputes are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. The ruling resulted in the adoption of new arbitration clauses or changes to existing ones in consumer contracts, as well as renewed efforts to persuade the federal government to regulate or ban the usage of consumer arbitration clauses. The support given to consumer arbitration under United States law (particularly the Federal Arbitration Act) has been compared to other countries, whose laws restrict or ban consumer arbitration.
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Consumer_arbitration?oldid=1097421297&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
136726
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Consumer_arbitration