Page:Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Frank Varela.pdf/21

Rh 2015) (“Tens of millions of consumers use consumer financial products or services that are subject to… arbitration clauses”), online at https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201503_cfpb_arbitration-study-report-to-congress-2015.pdf. Piling Pelion on Ossa, the Court has hobbled the capacity of employees and consumers to band together in a judicial or arbitral forum. See Epic, 584 U. S., at ___, n. 12 (, dissenting) (slip op., at 22, n. 12) (noting Court decisions enforcing class-action waivers imposed by the party in command, who wants no collective proceedings). The Court has pursued this course even though “neither the history nor present practice suggests that class arbitration is fundamentally incompatible with arbitration itself.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U. S. 333, 362 (2011) (, dissenting).

Employees and consumers forced to arbitrate solo face severe impediments to the “vindication of their rights.” Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U. S., at 699 (, dissenting). “Expenses entailed in mounting individual claims will often far outweigh potential recoveries.” Epic, 584 U. S., at ___ (, dissenting) (slip op., at 27); see American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U. S. 228, 246 (2013) (, dissenting) (“[The defendant] has put [the plaintiff] to this choice: Spend way, way, way more money than your claim is worth, or relinquish your… rights.”); Concepcion, 563 U. S., at 365 (, dissenting) (“What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the [plaintiffs] for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 [individual] claim?”); Resnik, Revising Our “Common Intellectual Heritage:” Federal and State Courts in Our Federal System, 91 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1831, 1888 (2016) (“Few individuals can afford to pursue small value claims; mandating single-file arbitration serves as a means of erasing rights, rather than enabling their ‘effective vindication.’”). Today’s decision underscores the irony of invoking “the