According to some commentators, the reversal is a boon for consumers as ” a victory for corporate accountability.” From the consumer’s point of view, it is hard to argue with this conclusion. As the analysis reflects, the preservation of the ability to engage in class-action suits is a benefit for consumers. Class actions make some lawsuits designed to curb corporate overreach economically viable for plaintiffs. Moreover, litigating a claim (as opposed to arbitrating one) keeps the case in the public arena, where public “oversight” – a long-standing and important feature of the American judicial system – serves the interests of justice.
Although arbitration is generally more efficient and cost-effective than litigation, the choice between arbitrating and litigating is best left for the parties, both of whom should have an equal say in the matter. Indeed, whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is the central question explored by the courts when determining whether a case should be arbitrated or not.