Question

Is Amtrak's arbitration agreement fair to consumers? Why or why not? Discuss with specific reference to relevant parts of the agreement, including Amtrak’s justifications for, and defenses of, the arbitration agreement as stated in the following sections of the agreement: Our Commitment to Customers, Your Legal Rights - Protected Through Arbitration, Benefits, and Myths & Misunderstandings.

Answer 1

Amtrak, which started operations in 1971, is a federal government institution that would comply with the laws of the United States. Constitution and acts only in accordance with the authority delegated by the Congress. The Congress ordered Amtrak to offer passenger rail services to American travellers; it did not allow Amtrak to compel travellers to forfeit their right to go to court if they were harmed by Amtrak, according to the complaint.

• The act involves a variety of attempts to place pressure on the American passenger railroad to regain the legal rights of Amtrak passengers and their families to bring any disputes against the company before a judge or jury.
• The non-profit Public Citizen filed a lawsuit in January calling the arbitration provision "unconstitutional" and trying to abolish it from the terms and conditions of the company's ticketing.
• The policy notes that it is "intended to be as inclusive as legally appropriate" and applies not only to individuals who purchase tickets but also to family members and other passengers, including minors, for whom tickets are purchased.

Provides a resolution to our consumers in less time — generally well within one year of filing — by preventing unnecessary discovery and other time-consuming hearings, and sometimes years of waiting for a trial date on overcrowded court .

Amtrak announced that it had entered into an arbitration agreement in January 2019, after agreeing that the resolution of passenger grievances by arbitration would enhance customer service and minimise the cost of litigation.

• arbitration provides much faster resolution of claims, and much faster compensation to injured parties, than does the civil litigation system
• However It argues that not only does the policy deny passengers the right to go to court, but the closed door nature of compulsory arbitration often lacks fairness and which dissuade passengers and families from filing claims.