Last November, The New York Times ran three front-page articles and a follow-up editorial excoriating companies who force their customers and employees to waive their right to proceed in court and instead have their disputes decided in arbitration proceedings where the deck is stacked against them. The articles brought to light that in certain cases the arbitrators who issued final and binding decisions had financial ties to those businesses and, as such, were anything but neutral—something prohibited by the policies and rules of legitimate dispute resolution providers.1
The problem is, portions of the Times articles were written so broadly that they criticized arbitration in general, including what is commonly known as “business to business” arbitrations.
