HR-8888-119
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
What it does
This bill would amend federal law to prohibit Amtrak from including mandatory arbitration clauses in its contracts with passengers. It would make any pre-dispute arbitration agreement — and any clause preventing passengers from joining class-action lawsuits — invalid and unenforceable for consumer disputes (including personal injury claims) and civil rights disputes. Courts, not arbitrators, would decide whether the law applies to a given dispute. The bill would not affect labor disputes between Amtrak and its employees, which remain governed by the Railway Labor Act.
Who benefits
Amtrak passengers who are injured or experience service failures and currently have limited legal recourse due to arbitration clauses. Passengers who allege discrimination based on race, sex, disability, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or national origin. Plaintiffs' attorneys who handle consumer and civil rights class actions. Disability rights advocates and civil rights organizations. Passengers who are minors or who received complimentary travel, who are explicitly included in the bill's definition of "customer."
Who is hurt
Amtrak, which may face increased litigation costs and larger class-action liability exposure. Federal taxpayers who fund Amtrak's operations, to the extent that higher legal costs increase Amtrak's need for federal subsidies. Arbitration service providers who would lose Amtrak-related business. Passengers who prefer the speed and lower cost of arbitration over lengthy court proceedings may also lose that option, since the bill voids pre-dispute agreements but does not prevent post-dispute voluntary arbitration.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Amtrak is a federally chartered, publicly subsidized corporation, and that forcing its passengers into private arbitration effectively strips them of meaningful legal recourse against a quasi-governmental entity. They contend that mandatory arbitration clauses systematically favor repeat corporate players over individual claimants, and that class-action waivers prevent passengers from aggregating small but widespread harms — such as systemic discrimination or widespread service failures — that would otherwise go unaddressed. They point to research showing arbitration outcomes disproportionately favor businesses over consumers.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that arbitration is a faster, less expensive dispute resolution mechanism that benefits many passengers, particularly those with smaller claims that would be uneconomical to litigate in federal court. They contend that the Federal Arbitration Act reflects a longstanding congressional policy favoring arbitration agreements, and that singling out Amtrak — rather than all transportation providers — creates an uneven regulatory playing field. They further argue that increased litigation exposure could raise Amtrak's operating costs, ultimately requiring larger federal appropriations or higher ticket prices for all passengers.