CAN’T WE PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM FRAUDULENT PRACTICES?
In ” ‘Concepcion,’ one year later” [NLJ, May 28], Andrew Pincus celebrates his victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and complains that diverse critics of mandatory arbitration clauses are striving to persuade Congress or federal agencies to reverse that decision. The Court in that case held that an arbitration clause may be written to close the access of citizens to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule was adopted by the Court in 1965 on the advice of the Judicial Conference of the United States. It permits the aggregation of identical small claims in order to redress and deter minor violations of the law that are otherwise unattended because the cost in time and attention of pursuing each small claim separately deters claimants from enforcing their rights.
