Bill Overview
Title: FAIR Act of 2022
Description: of 2022 This bill prohibits a predispute arbitration agreement from being valid or enforceable if it requires arbitration of an employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights dispute.
Sponsors: Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [D-GA-4]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights disputes where predispute arbitration is currently a factor
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The FAIR Act seeks to make predispute arbitration agreements unenforceable for disputes related to employment, consumer rights, antitrust issues, or civil rights.
- This means that many individuals involved in such disputes would be impacted since they would be able to take their cases to court rather than being forced into arbitration.
- The population impacted includes employees, consumers, individuals involved in antitrust disputes, and those facing civil rights issues.
- A wide array of sectors including labor, commerce, and civil rights advocacy will see changes; this could account for a significant portion of the global population.
- Considering global labor force and consumer data, millions of individuals around the world engage in activities that could involve these agreements.
Reasoning
- Individuals working in sectors with significant arbitration clauses, such as retail, tech, and customer service, are likely to see the most impact from the FAIR Act as it opens opportunities for lawsuits that offer potentially more favorable outcomes.
- Predispute arbitration is prevalent in employment contracts, meaning a significant portion of the working population potentially faces this issue, but not everyone will pursue court proceedings even if allowed, as some prefer arbitration for its speed and cost-effectiveness.
- Different levels of impact will be observed, with low-income workers and minority groups possibly seeing greater benefits from the policy as they are often disproportionately affected by constrained dispute mechanisms.
- Businesses might experience an increase in legal costs which could indirectly affect employees and prices for consumers, depending on how these costs are offset.
- A modest percentage of the US population—several million people—will directly feel the changes as they navigate disputes differently during the initial years of policy implementation.
- The average consumer in the US, especially those using financial and tech services, could notice changes if predispute arbitration is made unenforceable, as it could reform how disputes are traditionally settled in these sectors.
- The policy might not immediately benefit everyone due to continued use of arbitration by choice, but it presents a critical change in legal rights access, especially for people in power imbalance situations (employee-employer, consumer-large corporation).
- The policy's budget allocation suggests it prioritizes enabling the legal infrastructure and awareness campaigns to ensure affected individuals can access new dispute resolution pathways.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The current arbitration agreement in our contracts feels restrictive. Having an alternative to go to court makes me feel like I have greater control and recourse if needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retail Manager (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy change is important because it levels the playing field for consumers and employees like myself who might end up in disputes with large companies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see this change happen, as arbitration was always complicated and not always in our favor. I just worry whether the court system can handle the influx of cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Financial Analyst (New York City, NY)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The shift away from arbitration might end up costing companies more in legal fees, which usually gets passed down to employees or consumers in some way.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
College Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone studying the subject, this seems like a positive change. However, the cost and time involved in court cases might deter others from seeking justice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could increase my business costs significantly. It feels like it could be a double-edged sword – good for consumers and employees, but rough for small business owners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Public School Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having an option to take disputes to court could empower educators who often feel helpless in negotiations against school districts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Customer Service Specialist (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Many customers express frustrations about arbitration. Allowing court cases might help solve some issues but also could harm customer satisfaction if companies take a hit financially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Civil Rights Advocate (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The repeal is potentially transformative for civil rights cases. Litigation could be more fair, though it remains to be seen how it pans out in reality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
High School Student (Portland, OR)
Age: 18 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected yet, but I see it impacting my family. They think it's a good move.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 2: $1600000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $2100000000)
Year 3: $1700000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $2200000000)
Year 5: $1800000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $2300000000)
Year 10: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 100: $5000000000 (Low: $3500000000, High: $6500000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy enhances access to the judicial system for disputes related to employment, consumer, antitrust, and civil rights, impacting cost structures.
- Allows parties potentially more favorable outcomes through public dispute resolution platforms.
- Economic effects have to be balanced with potential social benefits from increased rights protections.