Colin P. Marks
This Essay explores the possible dual readings of Concepcion in light of the FAA and its interpretation, including Supreme Court precedents. This Essay concludes that though there is support for interpreting the Concepcion decision narrowly, it is more likely that a broader interpretation was intended, but the metes and bounds of this opinion have yet to be explored. Nonetheless, under this broad interpretation, the effect on consumers will be to discourage individuals from seeking redress for their claims. Indeed, the decision may actually encourage businesses to breach contractual obligations with impunity when the individual sums owed are too small to justify— in the mind of a reasonable consumer—the time and effort to seek a remedy.
Full article (.pdf) available here.