Abstract
Mandatory arbitration clauses have become a common fixture in consumer and employment contracts, requiring individuals to resolve disputes through private arbitration rather than in court. These provisions often preclude class actions and limit appellate rights, raising significant concerns about transparency, fairness, and access to justice. While advocates argue that arbitration offers efficiency and cost savings, critics contend it erodes legal protection and disproportionately favors corporate interests. This Article explores the legal evolution of mandatory arbitration, focusing on key U.S. Supreme Court decisions—including Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, and Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis—that have progressively expanded the enforceability of arbitration clauses under the Federal Arbitration Act. It also analyzes the role of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in addressing the implications of these clauses within the financial services sector. Despite facing constitutional and political challenges, the CFPB remains a pivotal actor in the debate over consumer rights and regulatory oversight. This Article argues that continued scrutiny of arbitration practices and the CFPB’s regulatory authority are essential to maintaining a fair balance between contractual freedom and public accountability.
Repository Citation
Florence Shu-Blankson,
Arbitrating Justice: The Rise of Mandatory Clauses, the Evolution of Case Law, and the Future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in a Shifting Legal Landscape,
109 Marq. L. Rev. 1507
(2026).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol109/iss4/8