FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 7, 2016
The Honorable Tammy Baldwin
United States Senate
717 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Baldwin:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the harmful impact of pre-dispute
mandatory (forced) arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for telecommunications services. I
share your commitment to consumer protection, and appreciate you raising this important issue.
While arbitration can be a useful tool in the dispute resolution toolkit, I agree that it is not
suitable for all situations.
In the 2015 Open Internet Order, we decided not to require arbitration as part of our open
internet dispute resolution process and agreed with concerns expressed by stakeholders that
mandatory arbitration more frequently benefits the party with greater resources and better
understanding of dispute resolution procedure. 1 For example, we agreed with commenters who
stated that, "[i]n most cases, consumers must pay filing fees and the arbitrator's costs, which can
amount to thousands of dollars.,,2 The same commenters also pointed out that the broadband
internet access service provider would be able to select the arbitration location, making the
process even costlier, and that arbitrated decisions are not reviewable and often not public,
precluding consumers from uncovering potential biases in the process.'
More recently, in the Commission's Broadband Privacy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we sought comment on whether to prohibit broadband providers from compelling
arbitration in their contracts with customers." The Commission reiterated concerns brought up
by stakeholders in the 2015 Open Internet Order record, and noted that "must as customers
should not be forced to agree to binding arbitration and surrender their right to their day in court
in order to obtain broadband Internet access service, they should not have to do so in order to
protect their private information conveyed through that service."?
I Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30
FCC Red 5601, 5718, para. 267 (2015) (2015 Open Internet Order).
22015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689; see also Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and other Telecommunications Services, Notiee of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-39,8, para. 274
(2016) (Broadband Privacy NPRM).
32015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689.
4 Broadband Privacy NPRMat 88, para. 274 (2016).
SId
Page 2-The Honorable Tammy Baldwin
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views will certainly be taken into account
as the Commission continues to review comments on the NPRM. Please let me know if I can
provide further assistance.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 7, 2016
The Honorable Richard Blumenthal
United States Senate
706 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Blumenthal:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the harmful impact of pre-dispute
mandatory (forced) arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for telecommunications services. I
share your commitment to consumer protection, and appreciate you raising this important issue.
While arbitration can be a useful tool in the dispute resolution toolkit, I agree that it is not
suitable for all situations.
In the 2015 Open Internet Order, we decided not to require arbitration as part of our open
internet dispute resolution process and agreed with concerns expressed by stakeholders that
mandatory arbitration more frequently benefits the party with greater resources and better
understanding of dispute resolution procedure. 1 For example, we agreed with commenters who
stated that, "[i]n most cases, consumers must pay filing fees and the arbitrator's costs, which can
amount to thousands of dollars.'? The same commenters also pointed out that the broadband
internet access service provider would be able to select the arbitration location, making the
process even costlier, and that arbitrated decisions are not reviewable and often not public,
precluding consumers from uncovering potential biases in the process.'
More recently, in the Commission's Broadband Privacy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we sought comment on whether to prohibit broadband providers from compelling
arbitration in their contracts with customers." The Commission reiterated concerns brought up
by stakeholders in the 2015 Open Internet Order record, and noted that "must as customers
should not be forced to agree to binding arbitration and surrender their right to their day in court
in order to obtain broadband Internet access service, they should not have to do so in order to
protect their private information conveyed through that service."!
I Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30
FCC Red 5601,5718, para. 267 (2015)(2015 Open Internet Order).
22015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689; see also Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and other Telecommunications Services, Notiee of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-39,8, para. 274
(2016) (Broadband Privacy NPRM).
32015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689.
4 Broadband Privacy NPRMat 88, para. 274 (2016).
5Id.
Page 2-The Honorable Richard Blumenthal
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views will certainly be taken into account
as the Commission continues to review comments on the NPRM. Please let me know if I can
provide further assistance.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 7, 2016
The Honorable Cory Booker
United States Senate
359 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Booker:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the harmful impact of pre-dispute
mandatory (forced) arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for telecommunications services. I
share your commitment to consumer protection, and appreciate you raising this important issue.
While arbitration can be a useful tool in the dispute resolution toolkit, I agree that it is not
suitable for all situations.
In the 2015 Open Internet Order, we decided not to require arbitration as part of our open
internet dispute resolution process and agreed with concerns expressed by stakeholders that
mandatory arbitration more frequently benefits the party with greater resources and better
understanding of dispute resolution procedure.' For example, we agreed with commenters who
stated that, "[i]n most cases, consumers must pay filing fees and the arbitrator's costs, which can
amount to thousands of dollars.,,2 The same commenters also pointed out that the broadband
internet access service provider would be able to select the arbitration location, making the
process even costlier, and that arbitrated decisions are not reviewable and often not public,
precluding consumers from uncovering potential biases in the process.'
More recently, in the Commission's Broadband Privacy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we sought comment on whether to prohibit broadband providers from compelling
arbitration in their contracts with customers." The Commission reiterated concerns brought up
by stakeholders in the 2015 Open Internet Order record, and noted that "must as customers
should not be forced to agree to binding arbitration and surrender their right to their day in court
in order to obtain broadband Internet access service, they should not have to do so in order to
protect their private information conveyed through that service,"?
1 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30
FCC Red 5601, 5718, para. 267 (2015) (2015 Open Internet Order).
22015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689; see also Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and other Telecommunications Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-39,8, para. 274
(2016) (Broadband Privacy NPRM).
32015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689.
4 Broadband Privacy NPRM at 88, para. 274 (2016).
5Id.
Page 2-The Honorable Cory Booker
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views will certainly be taken into account
as the Commission continues to review comments on the NPRM. Please let me know if Ican
provide further assistance.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 7, 2016
The Honorable Sherrod Brown
United States Senate
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Brown:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the harmful impact of pre-dispute
mandatory (forced) arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for telecommunications services. I
share your commitment to consumer protection, and appreciate you raising this important issue.
While arbitration can be a useful tool in the dispute resolution toolkit, I agree that it is not
suitable for all situations.
In the 2015 Open Internet Order, we decided not to require arbitration as part of our open
internet dispute resolution process and agreed with concerns expressed by stakeholders that
mandatory arbitration more frequently benefits the party with greater resources and better
understanding of dispute resolution procedure. I For example, we agreed with commenters who
stated that, "[i]n most cases, consumers must pay filing fees and the arbitrator's costs, which can
amount to thousands of dollars.v' The same commenters also pointed out that the broadband
internet access service provider would be able to select the arbitration location, making the
process even costlier, and that arbitrated decisions are not reviewable and often not public,
precluding consumers from uncovering potential biases in the process.'
More recently, in the Commission's Broadband Privacy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we sought comment on whether to prohibit broadband providers from compelling
arbitration in their contracts with customers." The Commission reiterated concerns brought up
by stakeholders in the 2015 Open Internet Order record, and noted that "must as customers
should not be forced to agree to binding arbitration and surrender their right to their day in court
in order to obtain broadband Internet access service, they should not have to do so in order to
protect their private information conveyed through that service.t'''
I Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30
FCC Red 5601, 57l8, para. 267 (2015) (2015 Open Internet Order).
22015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689; see also Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and other Telecommunications Services, Notiee of Proposed Ru1emaking, FCC 16-39,8, para. 274
(2016) (Broadband Privacy NPRM).
32015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689.
4 Broadband Privacy NPRMat 88, para. 274 (2016).
5 Id.
Page 2-The Honorable Sherrod Brown
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views will certainly be taken into account
as the Commission continues to review comments on the NPRM. Please let me know if I can
provide further assistance.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 7, 2016
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
United States Senate
711 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Durbin:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the harmful impact of pre-dispute
mandatory (forced) arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for telecommunications services. I
share your commitment to consumer protection, and appreciate you raising this important issue.
While arbitration can be a useful tool in the dispute resolution toolkit, I agree that it is not
suitable for all situations.
In the 2015 Open Internet Order, we decided not to require arbitration as part of our open
internet dispute resolution process and agreed with concerns expressed by stakeholders that
mandatory arbitration more frequently benefits the party with greater resources and better
understanding of dispute resolution procedure.' For example, we agreed with commenters who
stated that, "[i]n most cases, consumers must pay filing fees and the arbitrator's costs, which can
amount to thousands of dollars.t= The same commenters also pointed out that the broadband
internet access service provider would be able to select the arbitration location, making the
process even costlier, and that arbitrated decisions are not reviewable and often not public,
precluding consumers from uncovering potential biases in the process.'
More recently, in the Commission's Broadband Privacy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we sought comment on whether to prohibit broadband providers from compelling
arbitration in their contracts with customers." The Commission reiterated concerns brought up
by stakeholders in the 2015 Open Internet Order record, and noted that "[j]ust as customers
should not be forced to agree to binding arbitration and surrender their right to their day in court
in order to obtain broadband Internet access service, they should not have to do so in order to
protect their private information conveyed through that service.t?
1Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30
FCC Red 5601,5718, para. 267 (2015) (2015 Open Internet Order).
22015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689; see also Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and other Telecommunications Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-39,8, para. 274
(2016) (Broadband Privacy NPRM).
32015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689.
4 Broadband Privacy NPRM at 88, pant. 274 (2016).
5Id.
Page 2~ The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views will certainly be taken into account
as the Commission continues to review comments on the NPRM. Please let me know if I can
provide further assistance.
Sincerely,_~_/'.'// ;/k--:?f!r7/i-
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 7, 2016
The Honorable AI Franken
United States Senate
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Franken:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the harmful impact of pre-dispute
mandatory (forced) arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for telecommunications services. I
share your commitment to consumer protection, and appreciate you raising this important issue.
While arbitration can be a useful tool in the dispute resolution toolkit, I agree that it is not
suitable for all situations.
In the 2015 Open Internet Order, we decided not to require arbitration as part of our open
internet dispute resolution process and agreed with concerns expressed by stakeholders that
mandatory arbitration more frequently benefits the party with greater resources and better
understanding of dispute resolution procedure.' For example, we agreed with commenters who
stated that, "[i]n most cases, consumers must pay filing fees and the arbitrator's costs, which can
amount to thousands of dollars.,,2 The same commenters also pointed out that the broadband
internet access service provider would be able to select the arbitration location, making the
process even costlier, and that arbitrated decisions are not reviewable and often not public,
precluding consumers from uncovering potential biases in the process.'
More recently, in the Commission's Broadband Privacy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we sought comment on whether to prohibit broadband providers from compelling
arbitration in their contracts with customers." The Commission reiterated concerns brought up
by stakeholders in the 2015 Open Internet Order record, and noted that "must as customers
should not be forced to agree to binding arbitration and surrender their right to their day in court
in order to obtain broadband Internet access service, they should not have to do so in order to
protect their private information conveyed through that service.t?
I Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30
FCC Red 5601, 5718, para. 267 (2015) (2015 Open Internet Order).
22015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689; see also Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and other Telecommunications Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-39,8, para. 274
(2016) (Broadband Privacy NPRM).
32015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689.
4 Broadband Privacy NPRMat 88, pant. 274 (2016).
5Id.
Page 2 --The Honorable AI Franken
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views will certainly be taken into account
as the Commission continues to review comments on the NPRM. Please let me know if I can
provide further assistance.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 7, 2016
The Honorable Mazie K. Hirono
United States Senate
330 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Hirono:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the harmful impact of pre-dispute
mandatory (forced) arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for telecommunications services. I
share your commitment to consumer protection, and appreciate you raising this important issue.
While arbitration can be a useful tool in the dispute resolution toolkit, I agree that it is not
suitable for all situations.
In the 2015 Open Internet Order, we decided not to require arbitration as part of our open
internet dispute resolution process and agreed with concerns expressed by stakeholders that
mandatory arbitration more frequently benefits the party with greater resources and better
understanding of dispute resolution procedure.' For example, we agreed with commenters who
stated that, "[i]n most cases, consumers must pay filing fees and the arbitrator's costs, which can
amount to thousands of dollars.v' The same commenters also pointed out that the broadband
internet access service provider would be able to select the arbitration location, making the
process even costlier, and that arbitrated decisions are not reviewable and often not public,
precluding consumers from uncovering potential biases in the process.'
More recently, in the Commission's Broadband Privacy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we sought comment on whether to prohibit broadband providers from compelling
arbitration in their contracts with customers." The Commission reiterated concerns brought up
by stakeholders in the 2015 Open Internet Order record, and noted that "must as customers
should not be forced to agree to binding arbitration and surrender their right to their day in court
in order to obtain broadband Internet access service, they should not have to do so in order to
protect their private information conveyed through that service.i"
1 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30
FCC Red 5601,5718, para. 267 (2015) (2015 Open Internet Order).
22015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689; see also Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and other Telecommunications Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-39, 8, para. 274
(2016) (Broadband Privacy NPRM).
32015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689.
4 Broadband Prtvacy NI'RM at 88, para. 274 (2016).
5Id.
Page 2-The Honorable Mazie K. Hirono
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views will certainly be taken into account
as the Commission continues to review comments on the NPRM. Please let me know if I can
provide further assistance.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 7, 2016
The Honorable Edward J. Markey
United States Senate
255 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Markey:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the harmful impact of pre-dispute
mandatory (forced) arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for telecommunications services. I
share your commitment to consumer protection, and appreciate you raising this important issue.
While arbitration can be a useful tool in the dispute resolution toolkit, I agree that it is not
suitable for all situations.
In the 2015 Open Internet Order, we decided not to require arbitration as part of our open
internet dispute resolution process and agreed with concerns expressed by stakeholders that
mandatory arbitration more frequently benefits the party with greater resources and better
understanding of dispute resolution procedure.' For example, we agreed with commenters who
stated that, "[i]n most cases, consumers must pay filing fees and the arbitrator's costs, which can
amount to thousands of dollars.,,2 The same commenters also pointed out that the broadband
internet access service provider would be able to select the arbitration location, making the
process even costlier, and that arbitrated decisions are not reviewable and often not public,
precluding consumers from uncovering potential biases in the process.'
More recently, in the Commission's Broadband Privacy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we sought comment on whether to prohibit broadband providers from compelling
arbitration in their contracts with customers." The Commission reiterated concerns brought up
by stakeholders in the 2015 Open Internet Order record, and noted that "must as customers
should not be forced to agree to binding arbitration and surrender their right to their day in court
in order to obtain broadband Internet access service, they should not have to do so in order to
protect their private information conveyed through that service.t"
1 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30
FCC Red 5601, 5718, para. 267 (2015) (2015 Open Internet Order).
22015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689; see also Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and other Telecommunications Services, Notiee of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-39,8, para. 274
(2016) (Broadband Privacy NPRM).
32015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689.
4 Broadband Prtvacy NFRMat 88, para, 274 (2016).
5Id.
Page 2--The Honorable Edward J. Markey
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views will certainly be taken into account
as the Commission continues to review comments on the NPRM. Please let me know if I can
provide further assistance.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 7, 2016
The Honorable Jeff Merkley
United States Senate
313 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Merkley:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the harmful impact of pre-dispute
mandatory (forced) arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for telecommunications services. I
share your commitment to consumer protection, and appreciate you raising this important issue.
While arbitration can be a useful tool in the dispute resolution toolkit, I agree that it is not
suitable for all situations.
In the 2015 Open Internet Order, we decided not to require arbitration as part of our open
internet dispute resolution process and agreed with concerns expressed by stakeholders that
mandatory arbitration more frequently benefits the party with greater resources and better
understanding of dispute resolution procedure.' For example, we agreed with commenters who
stated that, "[i]n most cases, consumers must pay filing fees and the arbitrator's costs, which can
amount to thousands of dollars.Y The same commenters also pointed out that the broadband
internet access service provider would be able to select the arbitration location, making the
process even costlier, and that arbitrated decisions are not reviewable and often not public,
precluding consumers from uncovering potential biases in the process.'
More recently, in the Commission's Broadband Privacy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we sought comment on whether to prohibit broadband providers from compelling
arbitration in their contracts with customers." The Commission reiterated concerns brought up
by stakeholders in the 2015 Open Internet Order record, and noted that "[j]ust as customers
should not be forced to agree to binding arbitration and surrender their right to their day in court
in order to obtain broadband Internet access service, they should not have to do so in order to
protect their private information conveyed through that service."?
I Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30
FCC Red 5601,5718, para. 267 (2015) (2015 Open Internet Order).
22015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689; see also Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and other Telecommunications Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-39, 8, para. 274
(2016) (Broadband Privacy NPRM).
32015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689.
4 Broadband Privacy NPRM at 88, para, 274 (2016).
SId
Page 2-The Honorable Jeff Merkley
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views will certainly be taken into account
as the Commission continues to review comments on the NPRM. Please let me know if I can
provide further assistance.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 7, 2016
The Honorable Bernard Sanders
United States Senate
332 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Sanders:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the harmful impact of pre-dispute
mandatory (forced) arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for telecommunications services. I
share your commitment to consumer protection, and appreciate you raising this important issue.
While arbitration can be a useful tool in the dispute resolution toolkit, I agree that it is not
suitable for all situations.
In the 2015 Open Internet Order, we decided not to require arbitration as part of our open
internet dispute resolution process and agreed with concerns expressed by stakeholders that
mandatory arbitration more frequently benefits the party with greater resources and better
understanding of dispute resolution procedure.' For example, we agreed with commenters who
stated that, "[i]n most cases, consumers must pay filing fees and the arbitrator's costs, which can
amount to thousands of dollars."2 The same commenters also pointed out that the broadband
internet access service provider would be able to select the arbitration location, making the
process even costlier, and that arbitrated decisions are not reviewable and often not public,
precluding consumers from uncovering potential biases in the process.'
More recently, in the Commission's Broadband Privacy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we sought comment on whether to prohibit broadband providers from compelling
arbitration in their contracts with customers." The Commission reiterated concerns brought up
by stakeholders in the 2015 Open Internet Order record, and noted that "must as customers
should not be forced to agree to binding arbitration and surrender their right to their day in court
in order to obtain broadband Internet access service, they should not have to do so in order to
protect their private information conveyed through that service.t"
I Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30
FCC Red 5601, 5718, para. 267 (2015) (2015 Open Internet Order).
22015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689; see also Protecting the Privacy of Customers 0/
Broadband and other Telecommunications Services, Notiee of Proposed RuIemaking, FCC 16-39,8, para. 274
(2016) (Broadband Privacy NPRM).
3 2015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689.
4 Broadband Privacy NPRMat 88, para. 274 (2016).
5Id.
Page 2-The Honorable Bernard Sanders
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views will certainly be taken into account
as the Commission continues to review comments on the NPRM. Please let me know if I can
provide further assistance.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 7,2016
The Honorable Tom Udall
United States Senate
531 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Udall:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the harmful impact of pre-dispute
mandatory (forced) arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for telecommunications services. I
share your commitment to consumer protection, and appreciate you raising this important issue.
While arbitration can be a useful tool in the dispute resolution toolkit, I agree that it is not
suitable for all situations.
In the 2015 Open Internet Order, we decided not to require arbitration as part of our open
internet dispute resolution process and agreed with concerns expressed by stakeholders that
mandatory arbitration more frequently benefits the party with greater resources and better
understanding of dispute resolution procedure.' For example, we agreed with commenters who
stated that, "[i]n most cases, consumers must pay filing fees and the arbitrator's costs, which can
amount to thousands of dollars.t''' The same commenters also pointed out that the broadband
internet access service provider would be able to select the arbitration location, making the
process even costlier, and that arbitrated decisions are not reviewable and often not public,
precluding consumers from uncovering potential biases in the process.'
More recently, in the Commission's Broadband Privacy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we sought comment on whether to prohibit broadband providers from compelling
arbitration in their contracts with customers." The Commission reiterated concerns brought up
by stakeholders in the 2015 Open Internet Order record, and noted that "[j]ust as customers
should not be forced to agree to binding arbitration and surrender their right to their day in court
in order to obtain broadband Internet access service, they should not have to do so in order to
protect their private information conveyed through that service.?"
I Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30
FCC Red 5601,5718, para. 267 (2015) (2015 Open Internet Order).
22015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689; see also Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and other Telecommunications Services, Notiee of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-39,8, para. 274
(2016) (Broadband Privacy NPRM).
32015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689.
4 Broadband Privacy Nf'RM at 88, para, 274 (2016).
5Id.
Page 2~The Honorable Tom Udall
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views will certainly be taken into account
as the Commission continues to review comments on the NPRM. Please let me know if I can
provide further assistance.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 7, 2016
The Honorable Elizabeth Warren
United States Senate
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Warren:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the harmful impact of pre-dispute
mandatory (forced) arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for telecommunications services. I
share your commitment to consumer protection, and appreciate you raising this important issue.
While arbitration can be a useful tool in the dispute resolution toolkit, I agree that it is not
suitable for all situations.
In the 2015 Open Internet Order, we decided not to require arbitration as part of our open
internet dispute resolution process and agreed with concerns expressed by stakeholders that
mandatory arbitration more frequently benefits the party with greater resources and better
understanding of dispute resolution procedure.' For example, we agreed with commenters who
stated that, "[i]n most cases, consumers must pay filing fees and the arbitrator's costs, which can
amount to thousands of dollars."2 The same commenters also pointed out that the broadband
internet access service provider would be able to select the arbitration location, making the
process even costlier, and that arbitrated decisions are not reviewable and often not public,
precluding consumers from uncovering potential biases in the process.'
More recently, in the Commission's Broadband Privacy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we sought comment on whether to prohibit broadband providers from compelling
arbitration in their contracts with customers." The Commission reiterated concerns brought up
by stakeholders in the 2015 Open Internet Order record, and noted that "[j]ust as customers
should not be forced to agree to binding arbitration and surrender their right to their day in court
in order to obtain broadband Internet access service, they should not have to do so in order to
protect their private information conveyed through that service."?
1Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30
FCC Red 5601, 5718, para. 267 (2015) (2015 Open Internet Order).
22015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689; see also Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and other Telecommunications Services, Notiee of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-39,8, para. 274
(2016) (Broadband Privacy NPRM).
32015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689.
4 Broadband Prtvacy N?RMat 88, para. 274 (2016).
5Id.
Page 2-The Honorable Elizabeth Warren
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views will certainly be taken into account
as the Commission continues to review comments on the NPRM. Please let me know if I can
provide further assistance.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUN ICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 7, 2016
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse
United States Senate
530 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Whitehouse:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the harmful impact of pre-dispute
mandatory (forced) arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for telecommunications services. I
share your commitment to consumer protection, and appreciate you raising this important issue.
While arbitration can be a useful tool in the dispute resolution toolkit, I agree that it is not
suitable for all situations.
In the 2015 Open Internet Order, we decided not to require arbitration as part of our open
internet dispute resolution process and agreed with concerns expressed by stakeholders that
mandatory arbitration more frequently benefits the party with greater resources and better
understanding of dispute resolution procedure.' For example, we agreed with commenters who
stated that, "[i]n most cases, consumers must pay filing fees and the arbitrator's costs, which can
amount to thousands of dollars.,,2 The same commenters also pointed out that the broadband
internet access service provider would be able to select the arbitration location, making the
process even costlier, and that arbitrated decisions are not reviewable and often not public,
precluding consumers from uncovering potential biases in the process.'
More recently, in the Commission's Broadband Privacy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we sought comment on whether to prohibit broadband providers from compelling
arbitration in their contracts with customers." The Commission reiterated concerns brought up
by stakeholders in the 2015 Open Internet Order record, and noted that "[j]ust as customers
should not be forced to agree to binding arbitration and surrender their right to their day in court
in order to obtain broadband Internet access service, they should not have to do so in order to
protect their private information conveyed through that service."?
I Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30
FCC Red 5601,5718, para. 267 (2015) (2015 Open Internet Order).
2 2015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689; see also Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and other Telecommunications Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-39, 8, para. 274
(2016) (Broadband Privacy NPRM).
32015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689.
4 Broadband Privacy NPRM at 88, para. 274 (2016).
SId.
Page 2-The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views will certainly be taken into account
as the Commission continues to review comments on the NPRM. Please let me know if I can
provide further assistance.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 7, 2016
The Honorable Ron Wyden
United States Senate
221 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Wyden:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the harmful impact of pre-dispute
mandatory (forced) arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for telecommunications services. I
share your commitment to consumer protection, and appreciate you raising this important issue.
While arbitration can be a useful tool in the dispute resolution toolkit, I agree that it is not
suitable for all situations.
In the 2015 Open Internet Order, we decided not to require arbitration as part of our open
internet dispute resolution process and agreed with concerns expressed by stakeholders that
mandatory arbitration more frequently benefits the party with greater resources and better
understanding of dispute resolution procedure.' For example, we agreed with commenters who
stated that, "[i]n most cases, consumers must pay filing fees and the arbitrator's costs, which can
amount to thousands of dollars."2 The same commenters also pointed out that the broadband
internet access service provider would be able to select the arbitration location, making the
process even costlier, and that arbitrated decisions are not reviewable and often not public,
precluding consumers from uncovering potential biases in the process.'
More recently, in the Commission's Broadband Privacy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we sought comment on whether to prohibit broadband providers from compelling
arbitration in their contracts with customers." The Commission reiterated concerns brought up
by stakeholders in the 2015 Open Internet Order record, and noted that "[j]ust as customers
should not be forced to agree to binding arbitration and surrender their right to their day in court
in order to obtain broadband Internet access service, they should not have to do so in order to
protect their private information conveyed through that service."?
I Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30
FCC Red 5601,5718, para. 267 (2015) (2015 Open Internet Order).
22015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689; see also Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and other Telecommunications Services, Notiee of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-39,8, para. 274
(2016) (Broadband Privacy NPRM).
32015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Red at 5718, para. 267 n.689.
4 Broadband I'rivacy NJ>RMat 88, para. 274 (2016).
5Id.
Page 2~ The Honorable Ron Wyden
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views will certainly be taken into account
as the Commission continues to review comments on the NPRM. Please let me know if I can
provide further assistance.
Tom Wheeler