Next week could initiate the foreclosure of the class-action system as we know it, because that's when the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear arguments in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.
Class actions are lawsuits where people who are entitled to small sums of money (or sometimes large sums) pool their resources and claims in order to create larger, more valuable claims.
Up for debate and decision in AT&T, is the issue of whether companies can write contracts that allow consumers to "opt out" of their class action right, in "favor" of arbitration (that's slightly paraphrased).
Basically, the consumers argue that their rights and powers to keep companies honest are being removed if SCOTUS decides for AT&T (this is a very real possibility with this conservative Court). In opposite, the big businesses argue that they'll still design their arbitration clauses to fairly compensate consumers (I'm just a little biased against the "good behavior" of big businesses). You can see this LA Times article for a good analysis of the arguments.
In general, I favor our class action system (of course I do, I'm a lawyer). I think it stands as a fair deterrent from businesses acting irrationally and mistreating their customers. I believe that aside from their promises otherwise, big businesses would favor their customers' detriment to make larger profits. It's a simple numbers game, and numbers always win.
I think the biggest trouble most people have with the current class action system is the disconnect between rectifying consumers' losses, and the massive amounts of attorneys' fees taken from the settlement. In some instances, I have seen attorneys walk away with millions, while individual consumer receive less than their total losses. However, while folks may complain about the class action disconnect, "fair" arbitration is just as much of a misnomer. Under most arbitration systems, there's immense costs involved in trying to "fairly arbitrate" the claim, prevent claimants from pursuing their cases.
What I wish (and hope) the Court says is that the limits are unconscionable and not fairly bargained for or negotiated when the consumer enters the contract. Think about the types of companies that want these provisions: big business with big exposure. It's not the small business, "mom-and-pop" companies, it's big businesses such as AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Qwest, Directv, Dish Network, Microsoft, Apple, Bank of Oklahoma, and Google Buzz. Big companies that despite their "best efforts", will always choose profits over consumers, and consumers always lose. It's hardly imaginable that the contracts consumers "sign" and "agree to" are ever fairly negotiated. From my experience, it's always been agree to this contract, or you won't get service. If I choose to move elsewhere, I'm signing a similar contract with similar contractual provisions.
I will encourage you to watch for the AT&T decision. I think ultimately, the Court will rule that class action lawsuits bans are "fair" contractual limits that consumers agree on when they enter contracts to do business with particular companies.