HR-8888-119
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsored by Christopher Deluzio (D-PA)
What it does
This bill would amend federal law to make predispute mandatory arbitration clauses and class-action waivers unenforceable in Amtrak's contracts of carriage for consumer and civil rights disputes. It would require courts, rather than arbitrators, to decide whether the law applies to a given dispute, and it would exclude disputes governed by the Railway Labor Act.
Who benefits
Amtrak passengers with consumer disputes (such as personal injury or service claims) or civil rights claims (discrimination based on race, sex, disability, and other protected categories), who would gain the right to sue in court individually or as part of a class action rather than being forced into private arbitration. Plaintiffs' attorneys who litigate consumer and civil rights cases against Amtrak would also gain more business.
Who is hurt
Amtrak, which would face potentially higher litigation costs, class-action exposure, and reduced ability to resolve disputes through cheaper, faster arbitration; taxpayers, since Amtrak receives federal subsidies and increased legal costs or settlements could indirectly affect its budget needs. Amtrak's insurers, who may face larger payouts from class-action verdicts compared to individual arbitration awards.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that mandatory arbitration clauses buried in ticket purchase terms deny passengers meaningful access to courts, especially for civil rights claims where individual arbitration awards are often too small to attract legal representation. They contend that allowing class actions is essential for holding Amtrak accountable for systemic discrimination or safety failures that affect many passengers similarly, rather than requiring each individual to pursue a costly, isolated arbitration claim.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that arbitration is a faster, cheaper, and less adversarial way to resolve consumer disputes than litigation, and that eliminating it would drive up Amtrak's legal costs, which taxpayers may ultimately subsidize given Amtrak's dependence on federal funding. They contend that class-action litigation often benefits attorneys more than individual passengers through settlement structures, while clogging courts with disputes that could have been resolved efficiently through arbitration.
Constitutional context
Congress has authority to regulate Amtrak, a federally chartered corporation engaged in interstate transportation, under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), and to limit arbitration agreements notwithstanding the Federal Arbitration Act, an area where Congress retains plenary statutory authority as recognized in cases like Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018), which upheld arbitration agreements absent contrary congressional command.
Checks and balances
Congress would set the substantive rule limiting arbitration clauses, while federal courts (not arbitrators) would retain authority to determine the law's applicability and enforceability in specific disputes.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously restricted mandatory arbitration in specific sectors, such as the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, which similarly voided predispute arbitration clauses for certain claims.