Readers React: Let consumers opt out of arbitration

To the editor: Barry Goldman’s defense of arbitration in lieu of civil litigation is useful and sheds needed light on an important issue that few consumers know anything about or understand. However, his article could be a bit more pointed on what I believe are the three major issues of arbitration. (“No, arbitration isn’t evil, but safeguards are needed,” Op-Ed, Nov. 9)

First, arbitrators by law are not required to follow the law in their decision making.

Second, arbitration awards are essentially not (except in rare cases) appealable. For example, if an arbitrator tells a party to an arbitration “Yes, the facts and law are on your side, but I’m deciding against you,” you’re (essentially) stuck with that ruling, as unjust as it may be.

Third, given that most consumers know little about the rules or intricacies of arbitration, if companies want to be fair with their customers, their customers should be given the choice of opting out of the arbitration clauses in vendor contracts.

Steven C. Markoff, Pacific Palisades

..

To the editor: I agree that all of the arbitration bashing we keep hearing from trial lawyers and the politicians to whom they heavily contribute is misplaced.

Arbitration is a tried-and-true resolution method. It is not the “litigation lottery,” which often results in massive payoffs to those who play that game in court. Trial lawyers appeal to the passions and prejudices of gullible juries and then delight in “ringing the bell” for themselves and their clients.

For example, look at the $7.13-million jury verdict that a former Times sports writer got or the eye-popping $186-million verdict a San Diego jury awarded last year to a female part sales manager of AutoZone who similarly claimed discrimination.

It’s no wonder that those who benefit most from such windfalls don’t want the good times to end.

Anthony J. Oncidi, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook