A Democratic bill with 5 Democratic cosponsors · See all 5 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
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
The Investor Choice Act of 2026 aims to amend several securities laws to prohibit mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements. It targets issuers, brokers, dealers, funding portals, municipal securities dealers, and investment advisers. The bill prevents these entities from forcing customers or shareholders into arbitration or restricting their right to pursue class action lawsuits. It also prohibits the listing of securities if the issuer mandates arbitration in its governing documents or contracts. These changes would apply to new agreements and render certain prohibited provisions in existing agreements void.
Yes· 3 of 4
- Scored +7
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill protects investors by prohibiting mandatory arbitration and restricting the waiver of class action rights for disputes with brokers and investment advisers.
- Scored +5
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill enhances due process for investors by allowing them to choose between arbitration and the court system for dispute resolution.
- Scored +5
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
The bill provides more legal recourse for middle-class investors against large financial entities.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Financial institutions and issuers face greater litigation risks and may be subject to more class action lawsuits.
- Scored -2
Would high-income households be better off under this?
High-income individuals utilizing these services may face higher costs of dispute resolution due to the shift away from mandatory arbitration.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Freedom of Choice: Investors would be free to choose between arbitration or pursuing remedies in court based on which option they view as superior (Section 2).
-
Protection Against Forced Arbitration for Shareholders: Security exchanges would be prohibited from listing securities from issuers that mandate arbitration for shareholder disputes in their bylaws or contracts (Section �3(a)(1)).
-
Protection Against Forced Arbitration for Clients: It would be unlawful for brokers, dealers, funding portals, or municipal securities dealers to enter into agreements that mandate arbitration for future disputes (Section 3(a)(2)).
-
Ability to Pursue Group Claims: The bill prevents entities from restricting a customer's ability to pursue claims in a class action or consolidated basis (Section 3(a)(2) and Section 5(a)(3)).
-
Protection from Investment Advisers: Investment advisers would be prohibited from entering into agreements that mandate arbitration or restrict the forum a client can select to resolve a dispute (Section 5(a)(1) and Section 5(a)(2)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Voiding of Existing Agreement Provisions: For agreements entered into before the Act's enactment, any provision that mandates arbitration or restricts legal forums would be considered void (Section 3(b)(1) and Section 5(b)(1)).
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.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill protects investors by prohibiting mandatory arbitration and restricting the waiver of class action rights for disputes with brokers and investment advisers.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill enhances due process for investors by allowing them to choose between arbitration and the court system for dispute resolution.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill provides more legal recourse for middle-class investors against large financial entities. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Expanding access to court and class action remedies can benefit low-income investors seeking redress for financial misconduct. Would business owners be better off under this? — Financial institutions and issuers face greater litigation risks and may be subject to more class action lawsuits. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income individuals utilizing these services may face higher costs of dispute resolution due to the shift away from mandatory arbitration.
- 6/24/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Richard DurbinDemocrat · Illinois
John ReedDemocrat · Rhode Island
Sheldon WhitehouseDemocrat · Rhode Island
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts