This is the first story in our three-part series that looks at the extraordinary growth in mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts for everything from jobs to cell phones to medical care. Check out Part Two and Part Three.

Six years ago, Jon Perz bought a used blue Ford Escort from Mossy Toyota in Pacific Beach.

The Story

Companies across the country insert wording into their small-print contracts that bars consumers from taking them to court.


If You Value This Service, Please Donate Today

 Learn more about member benefits

So?

The contracts require consumers to settle disputes in arbitration, a private form of conflict resolution. As mandatory arbitration clauses have become ubiquitous, companies have carved out a world of justice that some insiders and academics say is deeply flawed and biased against consumers.

How?

Not only do corporations write arbitration into their contracts, they’re also increasingly stipulating the exact company or organization that will facilitate the arbitration. “It is almost impossible for us not to be self-serving,” says one arbitrator. Another disagrees.

During a test drive, Perz said he noticed a jarring vibration emanating from the car’s bowels every time he stopped at a red light or a stop sign. He said the salesman told him not to worry, that the engine’s idler needed a minor adjustment, and that he could bring the car in any day for a quick fix. Satisfied, Perz signed a contract to buy the vehicle for a cash price of $7,995.

As he drove home to Hillcrest, Perz noticed the vibration again. A couple days later, he brought the car back to Mossy for the adjustment. But when he picked it up, he said the car was still shaking violently. That’s when he started to get worried.

Perz said he took the car back to the dealership another two times, and tried to negotiate with Mossy repeatedly over the next few weeks. “They basically laughed in my face,” he said.

Perz said an independent expert he hired concluded the car had probably been submerged in water, causing the electrics to fail and rotting the vehicle’s frame with rust. Perz decided he couldn’t in good faith sell it to recoup his money. So he hired a lawyer.

That’s when he learned that he couldn’t take Mossy to court.

“My lawyer said I had to go to to arbitration,” Perz said. “I didn’t know even what that was.”

It was the first time he had heard the word, but arbitration was about to become a big part of Perz’s life. He had signed a contract that included a section known as a “mandatory arbitration clause,” meaning he had essentially waived his right to sue Mossy.

For the last decade or so, companies across the country have been inserting wording into their sprawling, small-print contracts that bars consumers from taking them to court.

Instead, the contracts require consumers to settle disputes in arbitration, an alternative, private form of conflict resolution that has none of the oversight or transparency of the courts. As mandatory arbitration clauses have become ubiquitous in contracts for everything from cell phones to employment, companies have carved out an alternative world of justice that some insiders and academics say is deeply flawed and biased against consumers from the outset.

Bob Fellmeth, a University of San Diego professor who has taught about consumer law, calls the shift toward the secretive world of arbitration “the most important consumer issue of our time.”

Over the last six years, as he has fought Mossy Toyota, Perz has become the poster boy for the burgeoning campaign against consumer arbitration in California.

Photo by Sam Hodgson
Photo by Sam Hodgson

As the blue Ford Escort sits in his garage, un-driven, gathering rust and dust, Perz has taken to the internet to tell his story. A video detailing his legal fight has raked in more than 280,000 views on YouTube, and Perz has attracted the attention of consumer advocates across the nation.

Richard J. Ritchie, who represents Mossy, said none of Perz’s claims about the car, or the way he has been treated by the dealership, are true.

He said the car was mechanically sound when Perz bought it, and said any claim that it was submerged in water is completely false. Mossy Toyota even tracked down the previous owner of the car, who stated in a deposition that it was in good shape when the dealership took ownership of it and had never sustained water damage, Ritchie said.

Mossy would love to have the case heard as soon as possible, he said, but Perz has spent the last six years coming up with excuses to keep the matter out of a hearing.

Ritchie said Perz has turned his fight into a crusade against the arbitration industry as a whole. Perz’s argument would quickly evaporate if he were to ever have his case examined on its merits, he said.

“His fight against the arbitration business has swallowed his initial complaint completely,” Ritchie said.

Perz counters that the only reason he is bound to arbitration is because Mossy forced him into it.

“I’ve spent six years in arbitration purgatory,” he said.

Signing Away Access to the Court System

It’s almost impossible to live in modern America without regularly signing away one’s constitutional right to a jury trial or even access to small claims court.

Those multi-page contracts you sign or click through online without reading invariably contain mandatory arbitration clauses that bar you from taking disputes to court.

The clauses are ever-present in contracts for medical procedures, car rentals and countless other services. Manufacturers have even begun placing mandatory arbitration clauses inside the plastic wrap on their products. The moment you unwrap the plastic on some new electronic products, you’ve lost your chance to take the company to court.

“When you pay your utility bills, you consent to arbitration. When you pay your credit card bills, you consent to arbitration, when you buy a house, you consent to arbitration,” said Hal Rosner, a local plaintiffs attorney. “There’s nothing you’re doing anymore that isn’t consent.”

Arbitration is supposed to provide a cheaper and quicker way to settle legal disputes than the court system. But academics, attorneys, plaintiffs and even an independent arbitrator contacted for this story described arbitration as an uneven playing field, with consumers facing an uphill battle from the start.

A Stable of Lame Horses

The challenge for consumers starts with the selection of the arbitrator, essentially a private judge who will hear the case and rule on its merits.

Not only do corporations write arbitration into their contracts, they’re also increasingly stipulating the exact company or organization that will facilitate the arbitration.

In California, most arbitrators are affiliated with one of several large organizations. The largest is the American Arbitration Association (AAA); another big one is JAMS (formerly Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services). Both have offices in San Diego. Both companies declined to comment for this story.

When Perz started his legal fight, he was told to choose from one of a handful of arbitrators with AAA. His attorney, Michael Lindsey, researched each one and finally settled on Toni-Diane Donnet, a former plaintiffs attorney.

Two weeks before the case was due for a hearing, however, Lindsey said he discovered Donnet had previously run a website offering legal advice to car dealerships. And as the hearing approached, the arbitrator began to send him and Perz solicitations for her real estate business, Lindsey said.

Worried his client was headed for an unfair hearing, Lindsey requested that Donnet be removed from the case. She was disqualified, and the process began anew.

Donnet, who now works as a mediator for the San Diego Association of Realtors, said she didn’t recall the Perz case. She said she spent much of her legal career suing car dealerships, and was surprised, looking back, that it was Perz and not Mossy Toyota who asked to have her disqualified. She also denied sending the real estate solicitations.

In a brief in San Diego Superior Court years later, Ritchie wrote that the objection to Donnet was the first in a series of attempts to delay the case because Perz wanted it to be heard in court, not arbitration.

Indeed, Perz and Lindsey later rejected another arbitrator, JoBeth Halper. Out of the 40 cases Lindsey could find that she had arbitrated for AAA, he said, Halper had never once found in favor of the consumer.

But AAA declined to disqualify Halper. Desperate, Lindsey appeared before Superior Court Judge Steven R. Denton, who sided with Mossy, and said the matter should continue in arbitration. Frustrated, Lindsey pulled out of the arbitration a few weeks later.

Ritchie said that was just another stalling tactic. Perz and Lindsey couldn’t prove that the second chosen arbitrator was biased, he said, and they just didn’t want the case heard on its merits.

These disagreements highlight one of the problems frequently cited with arbitration: The process is controlled by an arbitration provider, which makes the rules for the hearings and selects the private judges a plaintiff can choose from.

Kevin Baker, deputy chief counsel for the state Assembly’s Judicial Committee, which is currently looking into the growth of arbitration clauses in California, likened that aspect of the process to a rigged horse race.

The company gets to choose which stable the consumer selects their horse from, Baker said. Inside that stable might be five horses, all showing signs of impairment.

“Once you’re in that stable, you can say, ‘That horse is lame,’ or, ‘That horse is foaming at the mouth,’ but you’re still limited to those horses,” Baker said. “You can pick, but you only get to pick the least-worst horse.”

‘How Often Would You Rule Against Your Family?’

The selection of an arbitration company isn’t the only factor working in big business’s favor.

There’s also a more fundamental flaw with the arbitration system: volume.

Most often, the cost of arbitration is borne by the company being sued. Some arbitrators charge hundreds of dollars an hour or thousands of dollars a day. Put simply: Arbitration is big business for a few people who make a name for themselves, primarily retired trial judges.

That causes an inherent conflict: Large businesses naturally want to hire arbitrators likely to rule in their favor, said Alan Schulman, a law professor at USD.

“Arbitrators want to be hired again and again, and they won’t be selected again if they get a reputation as ruling for consumers,” Schulman said. “If they get a reputation for having awarded plaintiffs damages repeatedly, businesses are not going to select them.”

Schulman acknowledged that there are checks in California law to guard against companies and arbitrators developing relationships that handicap plaintiffs. Individuals who believe they have been wronged by a biased arbitrator can appeal to a judge, he said.

“But the reality is that a business would rather have its case decided by a professional judge than by 12 jurors,” Schulman said.

Victoria Pynchon has been working as an independent arbitrator for almost 10 years. The San Diego native didn’t mince words when asked whether the system is fair.

“It’s a huge justice problem,” Pynchon said. [rtb-pushquote]”Consumers are getting screwed. Every single day, their constitutional right to a jury trial is being stolen from them.”[/rtb-pushquote]

Pynchon, who works in Los Angeles, said she makes an enormous effort to discard her biases when she’s judging cases. But she said it’s almost impossible for arbitrators to completely forget who is buttering their bread. The result is “asymmetrical warfare,” she said.

“It is almost impossible for us not to be self-serving,” she said. “Just think of family. How often are you going to rule against your family?”

Longtime local arbitrator Mandel Himelstein begged to differ. He acknowledged that the system has room for unscrupulous individuals, but he said all of the hundreds of arbitrations he has worked on have had fair outcomes.

He said most arbitrators aren’t in it for the money. Rather, they’re trying to provide a fair, balanced forum where parties can get their disputes settled quickly, easily and cheaply, he said.

“I may live in a Pollyannaish world, but the people I work with are fair,” Himelstein said.

Arbitration Purgatory

At this point, the stakes have risen considerably for Perz.

His dispute is no longer just about the money he paid for his blue Ford Escort. He could find himself on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars that Mossy has spent on legal fees over the past six years.

Last year, in an arbitration hearing, retired Judge William J. Howett ruled that Perz had taken too long to bring his case.

In the six years Perz had been fighting his battle, the statute of limitations for bringing a lawsuit against Mossy Toyota had expired, Howett said.

Lindsey has appealed the decision, and is trying to get the case in front of a different arbitrator — one who doesn’t work for AAA.

For his part, Perz seems at times a little confused by the case that has defined his life for the last half-decade. There have been so many legal documents, arguments, claims and counter-claims over the years that his tale can get rather overwhelming.

He believes he could prove that Mossy sold him the lemon of all lemons. All he wants is the chance to make that case in a courtroom.

“In no way in my wildest dreams did I realize an arbitration agreement would allow them to do this,” he said. “It’s so frustrating. It’s just heartbreaking.”

Next in the series: Arbitration companies in California have long been required to make their records public, but many don’t bother, leaving consumers in the dark about a rapidly growing sector of the state’s justice system.

Voice of San Diego is a nonprofit that depends on you, our readers. Please donate to keep the service strong. Click here to find out more about our supporters and how we operate independently.

    This article relates to: Arbitration, Investigations, News, Share

    Written by Will Carless

    Will Carless is the former head of investigations at Voice of San Diego. He currently lives in Montevideo, Uruguay, where he is a freelance foreign correspondent and occasional contributor to VOSD. You can reach him at will.carless.work@gmail.com.

    21 comments
    jon perz
    jon perz subscribermember

    Interim Song Beverly Ruling: Dated September 15, 2014

    Breach of Express Warranty and Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Song Beverly Act)

    Mossy included a limited express warranty (90 days or 3000 miles) for 100% of the parts and labor costs on engine and transmission repair. The panel finds this would include the vibration problem. Mossy made two attempts to repair the vehicle with no success whatsoever and then informed Mossy it could not be repaired and was, at any rate, "normal" for this vehicle. In the event a warranted defect substantially reduces the value, use or safety of a vehicle, the seller must replace or repurchase the vehicle, or otherwise make restitution to the purchaser. This was a vehicle purchased at retail, for Perz' personal use.

    Perz made several requests of Mossy to repair the defect, and Mossy agreed to attempt the repair twice. Mossy was given adequate opportunity to repair or replace or make restitution. It was unable to do the first and refused to do the others.

    Perz has proven the elements necessary to prevail on this cause of action.

    The implied warranty of merchantability requires that the vehicle be fit for its ordinary use, in this case personal transportation to and from work. The only description of the condition of the vehicle is that it was unsafe to drive. Mossy's attempt to "reduce" the vibrations at stops by putting it into neutral corroborates the intensity of the vibrations and the unsafe measures which had to be taken to reduce the vibrations and allow for accurate vision through mirrors and the windshield. No opportunity to repair is required, though several opportunities were given.

    Perz has proven the elements necessary to prevail on this cause of action. Under the Song-Beverly Act. The panel is authorized to award double damages on the Song-Beverly causes of action, if Mossy's failure to act was willful, which it was. (Civil Code section 1794(c)). Perz is entitled to an award of fees and costs on the Song-Beverly causes of action (Civil Code section 1794(d)).

    Perz is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

    JAMS ARBITRATION NO. 1240021161

    ##

    David Gripon
    David Gripon

    How can anyone not agree with Mrs. Pynchon's statement? You cannot deny that the business has some sort of relationship with the arbitrator that they allow you to pick from that the consumer does not. Right? Right!
    I would be very concerned about going to an arbitrator, any arbitrator and I didn't need to read this story to have those concerns. I've never been through any of these processes or even have a complaint as a consumer, but as a reasonable adult, I would think it would have to be much more than a preponderance of evidence for the consumer to be successful.
    That is just my opinion. My views on this case are, the fact that Mr. Perz has let the time statute expire, it gives weight to many of Mr. Ritchie's statements, but in the end, the people almost always side with the consumer so I am surprised more hasn't been done to satisfy Mr. Perz. I, myself, believe something was wrong with that car when he bought it, but I am fairly certain the independent expert is incorrect.

    shawn fox
    shawn fox subscriber

    How do you explain things like the infamous McDonalds coffee spill case? How do you explain all of the stupid warnings attached to products that are designed to cover against massive liability lawsuits? It's preposterous to suggest that people have nothing to fear from lawsuits.

    tris buckley
    tris buckley

    @shawn fox Easy!  This is the problem when people get their news from headlines but don't actually read the whole story.  Here's the background on the case.  The victim suffered 3rd degree burns!  Do you know what that is?  It is the worst type of burn possible. She required skin grafts!  This was not a case of some "hot" coffee. It was literally scalding skin searing hot.  McDonalds had 700 complaints at the time regarding its scalding coffee.  The woman offered to settle the case for just $20k!!!!!!! McDonalds refused. When the jury heard all the facts they hit Mc Donalds with punitive damages.  Let's hope Shawn someday you or  loved one is not screwed over in a transaction....or worst....suffer terrible injuries.  Then you'll sing a different tune.  Mrs. Liebeck was not driving when her coffee spilled, nor was the car she was in moving. She was the passenger in a car that was stopped in the parking lot of the McDonald’s where she bought the coffee. She had the cup between her knees while removing the lid to add cream and sugar when the cup tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap.

    The coffee was not just “hot,” but dangerously hot. McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds. Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.

    Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

    Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn’t, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s later reached a confidential settlement.

    shawn fox
    shawn fox

    "Perz said an independent expert he hired concluded the car had probably been submerged in water, causing the electrics to fail and rotting the vehicle’s frame with rust." What really bugs me about this story is that statement. Rust is extremely obvious. If it were that bad, you could take it to any mechanic and they would agree. How could you not notice a "rotting" frame? Yet he assumed that the process was illegitimate, and he never gave it a chance. This story should cite all of the other mechanics who agreed; otherwise it is just he said vs. she said. After all, the original owner signed a deposition saying that it wasn't submerged in water. Would that be the same as perjury if it had been?

    shawn fox
    shawn fox subscriber

    "Perz said an independent expert he hired concluded the car had probably been submerged in water, causing the electrics to fail and rotting the vehicle’s frame with rust." What really bugs me about this story is that statement. Rust is extremely obvious. If it were that bad, you could take it to any mechanic and they would agree. How could you not notice a "rotting" frame? Yet he assumed that the process was illegitimate, and he never gave it a chance. This story should cite all of the other mechanics who agreed; otherwise it is just he said vs. she said. After all, the original owner signed a deposition saying that it wasn't submerged in water. Would that be the same as perjury if it had been?

    Richard Rider
    Richard Rider

    If you want to see a rigged arbitration process, check out the labor unions. If you are an nonmember working in an "agency shop" where dues are mandatory (almost all CA state and local agencies are agency shops) and have a dispute over dues with "your" labor union, the labor union gets to pick the arbitrator -- often an attorney for a friendly labor union. You have ZERO say in the matter. The results are predictably favorable for the union. Always. The American Arbitration Association seems to be just fine with this arrangement. I can't say for sure it STILL works this way today, but I can't imagine it's gotten any better. That is NOT "arbitration." That's a kangaroo court -- with one side getting to pick the judge and jury all wrapped up in one crony.

    Richard Rider
    Richard Rider subscribermember

    If you want to see a rigged arbitration process, check out the labor unions. If you are an nonmember working in an "agency shop" where dues are mandatory (almost all CA state and local agencies are agency shops) and have a dispute over dues with "your" labor union, the labor union gets to pick the arbitrator -- often an attorney for a friendly labor union. You have ZERO say in the matter. The results are predictably favorable for the union. Always. The American Arbitration Association seems to be just fine with this arrangement. I can't say for sure it STILL works this way today, but I can't imagine it's gotten any better. That is NOT "arbitration." That's a kangaroo court -- with one side getting to pick the judge and jury all wrapped up in one crony.

    Jerry Hilburn
    Jerry Hilburn subscriber

    Reviewing your previous comments on this topic, you clearly work in the legal field. A "Frivolous" suit can cost upwards of $2500 to be thrown out by a Judge. Only an attorney would consider that a small dollar loss. An arbitration clause eliminates the "Attorney Tax" and lets commerce flow. The less you have attorneys involved the better for the consumer, the courts, and the business.

    Carrie Schneider
    Carrie Schneider

    This situation remnds me of the conflict of interest among th audtors of Wall Street, the failure of which contribuetd to the Great Recession. They aren't independent, because they are being paid by people who have an economic interest in their reports. If arbitors are paid, or qualified, by companies, their opinion can never be considered disinterested.

    Carrie Schneider
    Carrie Schneider subscribermember

    This situation remnds me of the conflict of interest among th audtors of Wall Street, the failure of which contribuetd to the Great Recession. They aren't independent, because they are being paid by people who have an economic interest in their reports. If arbitors are paid, or qualified, by companies, their opinion can never be considered disinterested.

    Bernie King
    Bernie King

    This is juvenile, I know, but I chuckled when I saw the defense attorney was "Ritchie, Rich."

    Bernie King
    Bernie King subscriber

    This is juvenile, I know, but I chuckled when I saw the defense attorney was "Ritchie, Rich."

    Jerry Hilburn
    Jerry Hilburn

    As a small business owner who provides a recurrent monthly service, I incorporate an arbitration clause in our contracts. The number one reason I do it is that it allows me to offer lower pricing due to not having to defend my business against vexatious litigants. Small businesses must use every method to keep cost in check. A single lawsuit can kill a small business and the competitive aspects of not having to add the "Attorney Tax" to your pricing speaks for itself.

    NS
    NS

    I go out of my way to do business with small local companies. IMHO if you do your best to satisfy your customer you have nothing to fear from an attorney. "Frivolous" lawsuits can be thrown out by a Judge. I currently have a choice between two local companies to do foundation work on a home. One has an arbitration clause and the other does not. You can guess that I will use the one that does not. The other company obviously doesn't have enough confidence in his own work! It is quite unusual that I actually found a company today that doesn't have the clause!

    shawn fox
    shawn fox

    How do you explain things like the infamous McDonalds coffee spill case? How do you explain all of the stupid warnings attached to products that are designed to cover against massive liability lawsuits? It's preposterous to suggest that people have nothing to fear from lawsuits.

    Jerry Hilburn
    Jerry Hilburn

    Reviewing your previous comments on this topic, you clearly work in the legal field. A "Frivolous" suit can cost upwards of $2500 to be thrown out by a Judge. Only an attorney would consider that a small dollar loss. An arbitration clause eliminates the "Attorney Tax" and lets commerce flow. The less you have attorneys involved the better for the consumer, the courts, and the business.

    Jerry Hilburn
    Jerry Hilburn subscriber

    As a small business owner who provides a recurrent monthly service, I incorporate an arbitration clause in our contracts. The number one reason I do it is that it allows me to offer lower pricing due to not having to defend my business against vexatious litigants. Small businesses must use every method to keep cost in check. A single lawsuit can kill a small business and the competitive aspects of not having to add the "Attorney Tax" to your pricing speaks for itself.

    Kelly Abbott
    Kelly Abbott contributormember

    This is another comment. Please ignore.

    jon perz
    jon perz

    The biggest shame of all is why a customer did not receive any satisfaction at all from the beginning. Take it back, offer a trade out, anything. No address... Take care of your customers and the buck stops there. Maybe legally one does not really have to care! Just do the deal.