Arbitration Myths That Might Be Costing You Time and Money

October 7, 2025

Have Any Question?

Settling disputes with our online arbitration services is easy, fast, and affordable.

We look forward to answering your questions and helping you to reach conflict resolution with our online arbitration service.

Understanding Arbitration in Modern Dispute Resolution

Arbitration has become one of the most widely used forms of alternative dispute resolution in the United States. Whether written into an arbitration clause of a contract or mandated by a court, the process is often positioned as a faster and less costly alternative to litigation. Arbitration agreements are common in commercial contracts, employment disputes, real estate transactions, and even consumer issues such as credit card disputes or foundation repair contracts. While arbitration service providers such as the American Arbitration Association (AAA) offer structured rules for civil cases, many myths continue to circulate about how arbitration actually works. These misconceptions can lead companies, employees, and consumers to miscalculate the real costs and risks.

Myth 1: Arbitration Is Always Faster Than Court

It is true that arbitration is usually designed to streamline procedures compared to state courts or federal court. Discovery is more limited, procedural rules are less formal, and hearings are often shorter. However, assuming arbitration is always faster is a mistake. Large business-to-business disputes may involve European-style discovery, multiple witness statements, or extensive video conferencing that can stretch timelines. If parties select a panel of arbitrators instead of a single arbitrator, scheduling becomes more complex. In practice, complex arbitration can take as long as, or longer than, a civil lawsuit.

Myth 2: Arbitration Is Always Cheaper Than Litigation

Many companies insert arbitration provisions under the belief that arbitration will reduce legal fees, attorney fees, and court costs. While arbitration avoids some costs of the litigation process, there are unique expenses to consider:

Arbitrator fees: Private arbitrators are paid by the parties, unlike judges in civil procedure who are salaried by the state.
Administrative fees: Arbitration companies like AAA charge case management fees, which can exceed small claims filing fees.
Hearing costs: Extended sessions, especially in employment discrimination or real estate disputes, can quickly add up.

According to Public Citizen, consumer claimants often find the cost of arbitration too high, discouraging them from pursuing valid cases.

Myth 3: Arbitration Awards Can Be Easily Appealed

Another common misconception is that if you dislike an arbitration award, you can simply appeal in state courts. In reality, the Federal Arbitration Act and many state statutes, including the California Arbitration Act, severely limit appeal rights. Courts may vacate an award only in narrow circumstances, such as fraud, corruption, or an arbitrator exceeding their powers. Unlike a decision from a Court of Appeal in civil cases, arbitration decisions are largely final. This finality is marketed as an advantage but also represents a significant risk for those unfamiliar with enforcement procedures.

Myth 4: Arbitrators Must Follow the Law Strictly

Arbitrators are not bound by the California Rules of Evidence or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the same way courts are. While they generally adhere to AAA guidelines, arbitrators enjoy wide discretion in admitting evidence and crafting remedies. Some arbitration decisions may not align with strict statutory interpretation. This flexibility allows faster dispute resolution but also raises concerns about consistency compared to traditional civil lawsuits.

Myth 5: Arbitration Ensures Complete Fairness

The assumption that arbitration always provides a neutral playing field ignores potential biases. For example, when large corporations repeatedly use certain arbitration companies, critics argue that private arbitrators may feel pressure to favor the repeat player. Consumer rights groups like Public Citizen have published reports questioning whether mandatory arbitration in employment issues and consumer claims limits fairness. Unlike public state courts where proceedings are recorded, arbitration often occurs in private, limiting transparency.

Myth 6: Mandatory Arbitration Always Benefits Employees and Consumers

Many employment agreements contain a mandatory arbitration provision, covering claims under the Civil Rights Act or Equal Pay Act. Employees often believe this protects them by avoiding lengthy trials. However, statistics show that employees win fewer employment disputes in arbitration compared to litigation. Similarly, in consumer contexts such as credit card agreements or contracts with home builders, mandatory arbitration may prevent class actions, leaving individuals to pursue small claims alone.

Reality: The Arbitration Process in Practice

Understanding the real framework of arbitration helps clarify the myths:

Time and cost analysis: Simple contract disputes may resolve quickly, but complex business disagreements can drag on.
Limited appeals: An arbitration decision is almost always final.
Arbitrator discretion: Arbitrators may not follow formal civil procedure, allowing efficiency but sometimes sacrificing predictability.
Confidentiality: Proceedings are typically private, appealing to big businesses but raising transparency concerns.
Enforcement: Once an award is issued, parties may need to enter state courts for enforcement.

For more detail, see the AAA arbitration guidelines, which provide standard procedures for hearings, discovery, and enforcement.

The Importance of Drafting Effective Arbitration Clauses

Corporate counsel and law firms stress the value of carefully drafting contract clauses that address arbitration. Effective provisions include:

Scope of disputes covered (e.g., contract disputes, employment discrimination claims).
Selection of arbitrators (single vs. panel of arbitrators).
Procedural rules (AAA guidelines, or customized provisions).
Allocation of attorney fees and arbitration costs.
Location and governing law (state courts, federal court, or international rules).

Poorly drafted clauses can lead to civil procedure disputes before arbitration even begins.

Pros and Cons of Arbitration Compared to Litigation

Advantages

Privacy and confidentiality.
More flexible scheduling.
Tailored procedural rules.
Expertise of arbitrators in specialized fields like construction disputes or corporate law.

Drawbacks

High cost of arbitrators and administrative fees.
Limited rights to appeal arbitration awards.
Potential perception of bias with repeat players.
Public policy concerns when arbitration prevents collective consumer or employment claims.

Making Informed Decisions About Arbitration

Arbitration is not inherently good or bad, it is a tool. Businesses, employees, and consumers should weigh the litigation process against arbitration with a clear understanding of costs, fairness, and enforceability. Consulting legal counsel before signing arbitration agreements helps ensure that contract clauses align with your dispute resolution strategy. Whether you are drafting corporate contracts, evaluating a car accident claim, or preparing for an employment dispute, awareness of arbitration myths ensures you do not waste time and money.

Conclusion: Debunking the Myths Protects Your Rights

Arbitration remains a powerful alternative to litigation, but blind trust in myths about speed, cost, and fairness can expose parties to unnecessary risk. By understanding the realities of mandatory arbitration, the limited scope of appeals, and the discretion of private arbitrators, individuals and businesses can make informed decisions. Effective dispute resolution strategies, including careful drafting of arbitration provisions, awareness of procedural rules, and consultation with experienced counsel, help ensure arbitration works for, not against, your goals.