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

What it does

This bill prohibits companies and employers from forcing workers, consumers, and others into private arbitration for employment, consumer, antitrust, and civil rights disputes. It also bans agreements that waive the right to join class actions or collective lawsuits. Disputes covered by the bill must be decided in court, not arbitration, and courts—not arbitrators—decide whether the bill applies.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is to restore access to courts and collective legal remedies by voiding predispute arbitration agreements and class-action waivers across employment, consumer, antitrust, and civil rights disputes. This is fundamentally a rights-restoration measure, not a regulatory or appropriations bill.

What the text implies

• Arbitration clauses in existing contracts may become unenforceable retroactively for disputes arising after enactment, potentially exposing companies to a surge of class litigation they had contractually avoided.
• The bill applies to 'any dispute that arises or accrues' after enactment, which may create litigation over whether disputes arising before but accruing after the effective date are covered.
• Collective bargaining agreements retain arbitration provisions but cannot waive workers' right to seek judicial enforcement of constitutional or statutory rights, creating a hybrid regime that may generate disputes over scope.
• The definition of 'civil rights dispute' is broad and includes any law prohibiting discrimination on protected bases, potentially capturing disputes under lesser-known federal and state statutes that workers and consumers may not have known they could litigate.

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 the ability to join class and collective actions, which are typically more effective remedies than individual arbitration. Arbitration clauses have historically favored corporations by limiting damages, preventing class certification, and keeping disputes private; removing them strengthens individual and collective legal rights.

Who stands to gain

• plaintiff-side employment and consumer litigation firms
• class action attorneys
• civil rights organizations and legal aid providers

Named in the bill

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

Where it stands

34 cosponsors: 33 Democrats, 1 Independents.

• Sep 15, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Sep 15, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the 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.

Richard Blumenthal, the sponsor, reported $117,050 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.