Originally from American Review of International Arbitration - ARIA

Preview Page

The Supreme Court’s most recent “trilogy” of arbitration law rulings – Stolt-
Nielsen,1 Rent-A-Center2 and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion3 – deserves the lavish
attention it has been receiving, as evidenced by the contributions of Tom
Stipanowich4 and Alan Rau5 in this special issue. Professors Stipanowich and Rau
rightly view the three rulings as “of a piece,”6 revealing a determination on the
part of the Court’s majority to enhance the autonomy and effectiveness of arbitration
as a dispute resolution mechanism, even at the expense of consumer welfare. The
trilogy has the result, and most likely the purpose, of weakening safeguards that
had traditionally served to ensure the fairness of arbitral adjudication, while
keeping arbitration at a safe distance from dispute resolution on a class-wide basis.
By all accounts, the trilogy’s chief beneficiaries are those economic actors best
capable of protecting their own interests in the contracting process.7
Like past Supreme Court trilogies in the arbitration field,8 the present trilogy
represents a coordinated movement of the case law, a movement that Professors