Greenberg Traurig's study of the website practices of the Fortune 500 revealed that of the 28% of Fortune 500 companies that have an arbitration provision in their terms of use agreement, the companies were split as to which arbitration provider (if any) was named. The American Arbitration Association has the largest percentage at 56%, with JAMS in second at 36%. Interestingly, 6% of companies had an arbitration provision without a named provider.
Arbitration provisions in terms of use and similar consumer-facing agreements can be a valuable tool to reduce legal costs and nuisance suit demands. However, the rise of mass arbitration increases the importance of choosing the right provider to fit the company's goals.
This post is part of a continuing series of Greenberg Traurig's study of the website practices of the Fortune 500. Click here to read the previous post.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.