SSRN: Marks: The Irony of AT&T v. Concepcion
By Don Philbin, September 26, 2011
This post has been viewed 3,072 times.
This post has been viewed 3,072 times.
SSRN: Marks: The Irony of AT&T v. Concepcion goo.gl/2FjLu
Read original articleTags: Arbitration, Articles
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....
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...
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...
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...
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!
Tweet