For your average consumer, even arbitration is surrealistic and overly expensive.

By that measure, all the frivilous lawsuits against Fortune 500 companies are justified in that they settle out of court 90% of the time.

Kinda hard to show up if you’re unaware the case even exists. Media sensationalism indeed.

…and also because those journalists, like so many self-described journalists working in today’s reporting environment, either don’t have the training, education, intelligence, or curiosity, to perform any independent investigation of their subject, or they just don’t care enough about accuracy to do so.

Calling them “Godless Bloodsuckers” is always a sure bet that you’re about to get some reliable information from serious people. Ditto for the WEST VIRGINIA judge who weighs in… ahem. But alright, check out the site. “Consumerist,” it’s called? Would that be because they protect consumer choice and keep prices down?

Again, hmmm.

The Consumerist has many bad arbitration articles their website.

Didn’t think so.

A 98 percent conviction rate would be too low if 99 percent of those charged were in fact guilty.

I suspect this isn’t an overly factually complex situation. You owe the money or you don’t. I’m sure most tagged with owing, owe. In my experience with disputed charges, credit card companies are pretty good about dealing with those quickly and on good terms for the cardholder.

Perhaps oddly, those forums are generally plaintiff-friendly. Attorneys are deciding cases (as judge and jury) for other attorneys and their clients. The judgments often come in more generously than those of juries, who (at least in the venue in which I live) are generally skeptical of plaintiffs asking for money.

If the defendant believes the judgment is unjust they can appeal (“trial de novo”) but would owe the plaintiff’s increased attorney fees if they do not improve their position at jury trial. (The same goes for the plaintiff if they appeal and don’t improve their position).

So, the media’s insistence to portray arbitrators as shills for the big, evil credit card companies fall on deaf ears, at least for me. This is pointed out in Olson’s post—that many of the (essentially) default judgments against consumers in arbitration are not because the companies are leveraging their resources against the consumer, but only that they simply failed to respond to the arbitration proceedings and defaulted in the action. And, the remainder is simply decided on their merits.