Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act
SB 2799, titled the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, would amend Title 9 of the U.S. Code to bar the enforcement of predispute arbitration agreements and predispute joint-action waivers in a broad set of disputes. The bill covers employment, consumer, antitrust, and civil rights disputes, and it defines those categories expansively to include claims involving workers, consumers, class actions, collective actions, and discrimination claims across many protected classes and public settings.
The bill also specifies that courts, not arbitrators, would decide whether the chapter applies to a dispute and whether an arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable. It preserves a limited carveout for arbitration provisions in collective bargaining agreements, but even there it states that such provisions cannot waive a worker’s right to seek judicial enforcement of constitutional, statutory, or public-policy rights. The bill would take effect upon enactment and apply only to disputes or claims arising or accruing on or after that date.
If enacted, the bill would significantly narrow the reach of the Federal Arbitration Act by making pre-dispute arbitration clauses and class-action waivers unenforceable for covered employment, consumer, antitrust, and civil rights claims. It would also shift threshold enforceability questions from arbitrators to courts, and it would amend several existing FAA provisions and the chapter table in Title 9 to reflect the new chapter governing these disputes. The practical effect would be to preserve access to court, class actions, and collective actions for affected workers, consumers, and civil rights claimants, while limiting employers’ and businesses’ ability to require arbitration in advance.
The bill’s sponsorship and title indicate strong support from a large group of Senate Democrats, and its stated purpose is to restore access to courts and collective legal remedies. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded debate in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the bill is framed positively by its sponsors as a consumer- and worker-protection measure, with an emphasis on fairness and access to justice.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s broad elimination of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration and class-action waivers, which would be opposed by employers, businesses, and other parties that favor arbitration as a faster, lower-cost dispute resolution mechanism. Another likely dispute is the bill’s expansive definitions, especially its coverage of independent contractors, digital services, securities and credit transactions, and a wide range of civil rights claims. Supporters would view these provisions as necessary to prevent forced arbitration from limiting legal rights, while opponents would likely argue they increase litigation exposure and reduce contractual freedom.