Bill restores workers' right to sue in court, bans forced arbitration clauses

What it does

This bill prohibits companies and employers from forcing workers, consumers, and others into arbitration before disputes arise. It bans predispute arbitration agreements and class-action waivers in employment, consumer, antitrust, and civil rights cases, allowing people to sue in court or join class actions instead. Arbitration remains available only if both parties agree AFTER a dispute has already occurred.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is restoring access to courts and class actions for workers, consumers, and civil rights claimants by invalidating predispute arbitration agreements. This is a rights-restoration measure, not a regulatory carve-out or subsidy.

What the text implies

• Collective bargaining agreements retain arbitration provisions but workers retain right to seek judicial enforcement of constitutional and statutory rights (Section 502(b)(2)), creating a hybrid regime that may generate litigation over scope.
• Courts, not arbitrators, will determine applicability of the ban, potentially creating circuit splits on what disputes qualify as 'employment,' 'consumer,' 'antitrust,' or 'civil rights' disputes under the definitions provided.
• The bill applies retroactively to disputes 'arising or accruing' after enactment, which may trigger challenges to existing arbitration agreements signed before the law took effect.
• Voluntary post-dispute arbitration remains permitted (Section 5), preserving arbitration as a settlement tool but eliminating its use as a pre-dispute barrier to court access.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Workers, consumers, and civil rights claimants regain access to courts and class-action remedies, which are typically more transparent, allow for jury trials, and enable collective action against powerful entities. Arbitration clauses have historically favored corporate defendants by keeping disputes private, limiting damages, and preventing class certification.

Who stands to gain

• plaintiff's attorneys (class action and employment litigation)
• workers and consumers (restored court access and collective remedies)

Named in the bill

Title 9 United States Code, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, Fair Labor Standards Act Section 16(b), Clayton Act, Internal Revenue Code Section 62(e), House Committee on the Judiciary

Where it stands

72 cosponsors: 72 Democrats.

• Sep 15, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Sep 15, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 1 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $1,840,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 136 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.

Hank Johnson, the sponsor, reported $337,917 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Association for Justice — $1,840,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.