As a result of concerns over fairness in arbitration involving those with unequal bargaining power, organizations and individuals involved in employment, consumer, and health-care arbitration have determined common standards for arbitration in these fields. In 1995, a broad-based coalition representing interests of employers, employees, arbitrators and arbitration organizations agreed upon a Due Process Protocol for Mediation and Arbitration of Statutory Disputes Arising Out of the Employment Relationship; see also National Academy of Arbitrators, Guidelines on Arbitration of Statutory Claims under Employer-Promulgated Systems (May 21, 1997). In 1998, a similar group representing the views of consumers, industry, arbitrators, and arbitration organizations formed the National Consumer Disputes Advisory Committee under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association and adopted a Due Process Protocol for Mediation and Arbitration of Consumer Disputes. Also in 1998 the Commission on Health Care Dispute Resolution, comprised of representatives from the American Arbitration Association, the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association endorsed a Due Process Protocol for Mediation and Arbitration of Health Care Disputes. The purpose of these protocols is to ensure both procedural and substantive fairness in arbitrations involving employees, consumers and patients. The arbitration of employment, consumer and health-care disputes in accordance with these standards will be a legitimate and meaningful alternative to litigation. See, e.g., Cole v. Burns Int'l Sec. Serv., 105 F.3d 1465 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (referring specifically to the due process protocol in the employment relationship in a case involving the arbitration of an employee's rights under Title VII).

The Drafting Committee determined to leave the issue of adhesion contracts and unconscionability to developing law because (1) the doctrine of unconscionability reflects so much the substantive law of the States and not just arbitration, (2) the case law, statutes, and arbitration standards are rapidly changing, and (3) treating arbitration clauses differently from other contract provisions would raise significant preemption issues under the Federal Arbitration Act. However, it should be pointed out that a primary purpose of Section 4, which provides that some sections of the RUAA are not waivable, is to address the problem of contracts of adhesion in the statute while taking into account the limitations caused by federal preemption.