Mass arbitration is reshaping how large-scale disputes are brought and resolved, particularly as class action waivers push claims into individual arbitration.
In this episode of The Arbitration Acumen Podcast, J.P. Duffy speaks with Michael Hartmere, CEO of The HQ Firm, about the claimant’s approach to mass arbitration, including how firms vet and file claims at scale, manage operational and financial risk, and leverage technology and litigation funding.
The discussion covers: on the claimant’s perspective in mass arbitration. They discuss:
- Key differences between mass arbitration and class actions
- “Fee bombing” strategies
- The growing role of technology in claim management
- The economics of litigation funding and portfolio risk
The episode also explores how claimant strategies are evolving in response to rule changes, institutional reforms and judicial scrutiny, positioning mass arbitration as a central and evolving feature of modern dispute resolution.
Episode Highlights
[5:09] Defining Mass Arbitration and Its Distinction from Class Actions: Mass arbitration involves filing large numbers of individual arbitration claims based on similar conduct, typically under agreements that include class action waivers. Unlike class actions:
- Claims are not aggregated into a single proceeding
- Each case proceeds independently
- Outcomes do not bind other claimants
This creates a decentralized enforcement model that introduces both flexibility and operational complexity.
[10:19] The Evolution: From Concepcion to Coordinated Filings: Mass arbitration developed in response to US Supreme Court decisions like AT&T v. Concepcion, which upheld the enforceability of class action waivers.
As companies moved disputes into individual arbitration, claimant firms responded by developing strategies to file claims at scale. This evolution reflects a long-running “drafting battle” between corporate risk management and claimant-side innovation.
[18:39] The Rise (and Limits) of “Fee Bombing”: Claimant firms historically leveraged arbitration clauses requiring companies to pay upfront fees by filing thousands of claims simultaneously—creating immense financial pressure to settle. While effective, this “fee bombing” tactic has been mitigated by rule changes from major arbitral institutions. As a result, claimant approaches are shifting toward more merits-driven and data-informed models.
[30:05] Economics, Technology and Funding at Scale: Mass arbitration is highly capital-intensive, requiring significant upfront investment in claim vetting, filing and administration.
To manage these demands, firms rely on contingency fee models, co-counsel arrangements and third-party litigation funding, including portfolio funding.
Technology plays a critical role in efficiently collecting evidence, screening claims and managing large case portfolios.
[38:19] Procedural Tools: Bellwethers vs. Batching: Procedural tools can shape outcomes in mass arbitration.
Bellwether cases may help establish valuation benchmarks and guide settlement discussions—if they are truly representative.
Batching approaches (grouping cases for sequential resolution) can introduce delays and reduce efficiency.
The effectiveness of these strategies depends heavily on fairness, implementation and institutional rules.
[43:42] The Future: A More Nuanced, Evolving Strategy: Mass arbitration is likely to remain a key feature of dispute resolution as long as class action waivers persist. However, the strategy is shifting from blunt financial pressure toward sophisticated data-driven approaches that account for claim quality, procedural rules and funding structures. Both claimant and defense strategies will continue to adapt in this rapidly developing area.
