Christopher Deluzio (D-PA)
Ending Passenger Rail Forced Arbitration Act
A Democratic bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Ending Passenger Rail Forced Arbitration Act," seeks to amend title 49 of the United States Code. It aims to prohibit Amtrak from using predispute arbitration agreements that force consumer and civil rights disputes into arbitration. Additionally, it prohibits agreements that prevent customers from participating in joint, class, or collective actions. The act targets disputes involving services, accommodations, or carriage on Amtrak trains. These protections apply to all customers, regardless of whether they are minors or have paid for transportation.
Yes· 3 of 12
- Scored +6
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill prohibits Amtrak from using mandatory arbitration clauses that prevent customers from pursuing consumer and civil rights disputes in court.
- Scored +5
Would children be better off under this?
The bill specifies that protections apply to customers regardless of whether they are minors.
- Scored +5
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
The bill ensures that older customers retain their right to judicial recourse for consumer and civil rights disputes.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Rights: The bill prohibits arbitration agreements that force consumer and civil rights disputes into arbitration, which protects the ability of customers to pursue these issues through other means (Section 2(a)(1)).
-
Preservation of Collective Action: It prohibits practices that interfere with a customer's right to participate in joint, class, or collective actions related to consumer or civil rights disputes (Section 2(a)(2)).
-
Broad Coverage of Civil Rights: The bill defines civil rights disputes to include alleged violations of the Constitution or laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, sex, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or national origin, among other protected statuses (Section 2(b)(2)(A)).
-
Consumer Safety and Injury Claims: The definition of a consumer dispute includes all claims related to personal injuries between Amtrak and its customers (Section 2(b)(3)).
-
Court Oversight: The bill ensures that whether an agreement to arbitrate is valid or applicable is determined by a court rather than an arbitrator (Section 2(c)(2)(B)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Exclusion of Certain Disputes: This section does not apply to predispute arbitration agreements or joint-action waivers invoked in connection with disputes subject to the Railway Labor Act (Section 2(c)(2)(C)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill protects the ability of Black Americans to seek judicial relief for racial discrimination. Would children be better off under this? — The bill specifies that protections apply to customers regardless of whether they are minors. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill protects the ability of Hispanic Americans to seek judicial relief for discrimination based on national origin. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill enables access to class action lawsuits which are often vital for low-income consumers seeking redress. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill ensures that individuals with disabilities can litigate discrimination claims in court rather than through forced arbitration. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — The bill ensures that older customers retain their right to judicial recourse for consumer and civil rights disputes.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The bill expands the ability of customers with disabilities to pursue legal action for discrimination via court systems. Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — The bill protects the right to litigate sex-based discrimination claims in court. Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people? — The bill includes gender identity and sexual orientation in its definition of protected statuses for civil rights disputes. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill ensures that racial discrimination disputes can be heard in court rather than being forced into private arbitration.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill prohibits Amtrak from using mandatory arbitration clauses that prevent customers from pursuing consumer and civil rights disputes in court.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill transfers the authority to determine the validity of arbitration agreements from private arbitrators to the court system.
- 5/19/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Brendan BoyleDemocrat · Pennsylvania