Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Arbitration Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves arbitration reforms intended to make compelled arbitration more accessible
Summary
After committee amendments narrowed the proposal, the House passed House Bill 12‑36 to limit onerous arbitration costs, add protections on arbitrator disqualification and extend time before damages apply; opponents warned it could reduce consumer relief or increase litigation.
House Bill 12‑36, described by sponsors as a narrow reform package to make forced arbitration more affordable and accessible, passed the House on April 27 after committee and floor debate.
Sponsor Representative Zocai said the bill is not intended to eliminate arbitration but to ensure that when arbitration is compelled it actually provides an attainable forum: fee structures should be comparable to court, arbitrators should not be removable merely for having a perceived track record, and awards should be enforceable without forcing claimants back into court.
Representative Mabry argued the bill helps low‑wage workers and consumers who often cannot afford arbitration costs, while opponents cited Consumer Financial Protection Bureau findings suggesting arbitration can be faster and sometimes produce favorable outcomes for individual claimants. Representative Flannell urged a no vote, citing the CFPB study and warning the reform could cause delay and lower recovery in aggregate.
The judiciary committee removed an original provision that would ban class‑action waivers and otherwise tightened and clarified language on arbitrator disqualification, fee caps, and compliance timelines. After floor debate and committee report adoption, the House passed the bill as amended.
What happens next: Sponsors said the bill aims to preserve arbitration where appropriate while preventing financial barriers that effectively deny claimants access to relief.
