Recent lawsuits, legal disputes, and critical opinion of the Quixtar/IBO Arbitration procedures have been reported at several blogs, such as LawBlawg.
At the core of the discussion lies the fact that during a Rules of Conduct violation and resolution by a Quixtar IBO, the corporation requires an arbitration process.
The arbitration process
is was administered solely by a firm named JAMS.
According to a new rule adoption by Quixtar, a change has been made. One can speculate that the change may be because of the recent publicity surrounding this arbitration process.
The option has been added that interested parties can now acquire the services of any member of the American Arbitration Association in the event that suitable arbitration by the JAMS roster is not possible.
Interesting also, is that arbitration itself, can also be circumvented in certain cases and may be tried by a federal court or a Kent County Circuit Court. (Kent County is the jurisdiction that Quixtar falls under)
I’m sure other bloggers will dissect this rule change and it will be the talk of the Quixtar blogosphere, but my only opinion is that I’m disappointed that this “openness” comes only after bad publicity.
We, Quixtarites, have to initiate transparency from the start, not merely react and adjust every single time. If we want an innovative business opportunity, then we need to innovate at every level, and that includes the “legal-beagle” side of the business.