From the outside, arbitration sounds like a fair process—an alternative to the courts where disputes can be settled without the headaches of litigation. But when a corrupt corporation like Brief (formerly known as Ejudicate, Inc.) takes the reins, what should be a balanced process instead turns into a tilted playing field. Consumers have long trusted arbitration to provide fair outcomes, but recent revelations suggest that trust may be dangerously misplaced.
Was Brief (nee Ejudicate) ever truly neutral? Or was it a corporate puppet all along?
Spoiler alert: it’s the latter. And it completely destroyed people’s lives.
The Consume Financial Protection Bureau recently outlined a series of transgressions committed by Brief. The company, involved in arbitration services, operated in a way that violated both state and federal regulations. They cut straight at the heart of consumer rights and protections.
Consumers sought arbitration to resolve disputes, believing in the fairness of the process, but instead found themselves trapped in a system skewed in favor of corporations, leaving them in worse financial positions, some even facing bankruptcy.
At the heart of Brief’s misconduct was its failure to provide transparent, impartial arbitration services.
Just as a reminder, arbitration helps people solve disputes without having to go to court. Instead of a judge, a neutral person called an arbitrator listens to both sides and decides what’s fair. It’s a quicker and cheaper way to settle issues, which is why many people and companies prefer it over long, expensive trials. What’s important to note is that unlike a trial which can have the case tried and retired in front of different judges, arbitration rulings are final. Whatever the arbitrator renders as their decision is the final outcome. No ifs or buts. Because of this, it’s vitally important for arbitrators (like Brief) to be as impartial as possible.
But instead of being a neutral party, the company worked behind the scenes to orchestrate outcomes favorable to its corporate clients, who were often repeat users of Brief’s services.
As a result, everyday consumers who were already in precarious financial situations found themselves paying inflated fees, agreeing to unfair settlements, or being misled about their legal rights. These were deliberate strategies designed to maximize profit at the expense of the consumers’ well-being.
Brief‘s website proudly touts its ability to deliver speedy, low-cost arbitration, but it’s no mystery how they manage it. Their secret? Streamlining the process by asking the very corporations under arbitration what outcome they’d prefer—and then delivering it, with the real profit coming from rewarding those same companies with favorable rulings.
The financial toll on individuals has been absolutely devastating.
Many consumers sought arbitration to resolve disputes over small debts, thinking they could find an equitable solution. Instead, they encountered a process marred by conflicts of interest, a lack of transparency, and biased arbitrators who consistently sided with corporate clients.
One individual, struggling with medical debt, recounted how they entered arbitration with hope but left with a binding decision that forced them to pay more than double the original amount owed!
The emotional toll was just as severe, with many consumers describing sleepless nights, anxiety, and even depression as they navigated a process that was rigged against them from the start.
Beyond the direct financial harm to consumers, Brief’s practices eroded trust in the arbitration system as a whole. The belief that arbitration could serve as a cheaper, quicker alternative to court was fundamentally undermined.
Community organizations have pointed out that these practices disproportionately impacted lower-income individuals, many of whom lacked the legal expertise or resources to challenge unfair decisions. Legal advocates have long warned about the dangers of mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, but Brief’s behavior took those concerns to new heights, demonstrating the dangers when an arbitration provider operates with little accountability.
The economic ripple effects were likewise significant. Individuals burdened with unjust debt settlements reported delaying crucial life decisions—like purchasing a home, seeking further education, or even starting a family.
Small communities, where individuals often share financial burdens among families, were especially hard-hit, as relatives and friends pooled resources to help cover legal fees and settlements.
Ejudicate (presumably pronounced adjudicate) has since rebranded changed its name to Brief, and their website is: https://www.thinkbrief.com