Were you given a choice to opt out?

The results of a survey of 1,071 adults in the United States reveal that most consumers do not pay attention to, let alone understand, arbitration clauses in their everyday lives. The vast majority of survey respondents (over 97%) report having opened an account with a company that requires disputes to be submitted to binding arbitration (e.g., Netflix, Hulu, Cash App, a phone or cable company), yet most are unaware that they have, in fact, agreed to mandatory arbitration (also known as “forced arbitration”). Indeed, over 99% of respondents who think they have never entered into an arbitration agreement likely have done so. Over 92% of respondents report that they have never based a decision to use a product or service on whether the terms and conditions contain an arbitration agreement. When prompted, they largely endorse the following reasons: they were unaware of the arbitration clause, they did not read the terms and conditions, and they thought they had no choice but to agree to mandatory arbitration. Moreover, many respondents presume that if a dispute arises, they will still be able to access the public courts, notwithstanding that they agreed to the terms and conditions. Consumers are largely unaware of opportunities to opt out of mandatory arbitration. They generally do not pay attention to or retain information about the steps required to opt out successfully (e.g., contacting the company within a specified time period). Generally, consumers are unaware that companies like Cash App and Venmo (mobile payment systems utilized by nearly 60% of respondents) allow customers to opt out of mandatory arbitration if they act within a limited time period. Among the minority of respondents (21%) who stated that they had been given an opportunity to opt out, vanishingly few could name any of the steps required to opt out successfully. When presented with a run-of-the-mill contract, of the type consumers routinely encounter, most respondents did not take notice of the arbitration clause. Less than 5% of respondents could recall that the contract they were shown had said anything at all about arbitration. Furthermore, most consumers misperceive the consequences of signing a predispute arbitration agreement. Most mistakenly believe that, after agreeing to terms and conditions mandating binding arbitration, they can still choose to settle their dispute in court, have a jury decide their case, join a class action, and appeal a decision made based on a legal error. For instance, less than 5% of respondents correctly reported that they could neither appeal an erroneous decision to another arbitrator (or set of arbitrators) nor start all over again in court. Less than 1% of respondents correctly understood the full significance of the arbitration agreement, as indicated by their responses to questions about whether they retained the rights to sue, have a jury decide their case, access the public courts, and appeal a decision based on a legal error. In summary, consumers are generally unaware of arbitration clauses, and they tend to hold mistaken beliefs about how arbitration agreements affect consumers’ procedural rights.

一项针对美国1071名成年人的调查结果显示，绝大多数消费者在日常生活中既未留意仲裁条款（arbitration clauses），更遑论理解其内容。超97%的受访对象表示，曾在要求将纠纷提交约束性仲裁（binding arbitration）的企业开立账户（例如网飞（Netflix）、Hulu、现金应用（Cash App）、手机或有线电视运营商），但多数受访者并未意识到自己实际上已同意接受强制性仲裁（mandatory arbitration，又称“强制仲裁”（forced arbitration））。事实上，自认从未签署过仲裁协议的受访者中，超99%实际上早已受相关条款约束。超92%的受访者表示，他们从未将“服务条款中是否包含仲裁协议”作为选择使用某产品或服务的决策依据。当被问及缘由时，多数受访者给出的理由主要包括：未留意仲裁条款、未阅读服务条款，以及认为自己别无选择只能同意接受强制性仲裁。

此外，许多受访者误以为即便已签署服务条款，一旦发生纠纷仍可诉诸公共法院。消费者普遍不知晓可通过退出机制规避强制性仲裁，且大多未留意或未记住成功退出所需的操作步骤（例如在指定时限内联系企业）。总体而言，消费者并不知晓，现金应用（Cash App）与维莫（Venmo）这类被近60%的受访者使用的移动支付系统，允许用户在限定时限内通过操作退出强制性仲裁。在仅占比21%的、自称曾获得退出机会的受访者中，几乎无人能说出成功退出所需的任一操作步骤。

当向受访者展示消费者日常接触的普通制式合同时，多数人并未留意其中的仲裁条款。仅不足5%的受访者能回忆起所展示的合同中涉及仲裁相关内容。此外，多数消费者对签署纠纷前仲裁协议（predispute arbitration agreement）的法律后果存在认知偏差。多数受访者错误地认为，在同意接受约束性仲裁的服务条款后，仍可选择在法院解决纠纷、由陪审团审理案件、参与集体诉讼（class action），以及对基于法律错误作出的裁决提起上诉。例如，仅不足5%的受访者能正确作答：他们既无法就错误裁决向另一仲裁员（或仲裁庭）提起上诉，也无法在法院重新启动诉讼程序。在回答有关是否保留起诉权、由陪审团审理案件权、诉诸公共法院权，以及对基于法律错误的裁决提起上诉权的问题时，仅不足1%的受访者能正确理解仲裁协议的全部法律意义。

综上，消费者普遍未留意仲裁条款，且往往对仲裁协议如何影响消费者的程序权利存在错误认知。