For several years there has been some form of proposed federal legislation limiting arbitration and it appears likely that "something" will be passed in the future which retreats from the current national stance favoring arbitration. Strong forces exist on both sides as plaintiff lawyers and consumer groups claim that arbitration is a rigged star chamber while corporations claim that they are required to reduce litigation costs. Given that the consumer/plaintiff argument carries some simple-but-forceful themes (e.g., "secret" arbitration panels, "hidden" results, "maze of fine print"), the pro-arbitration argument comes across as cerebral at best and more often as a pro-business tool. If you have any question as to the force of these themes, watch this 10-minute Senate hearing excerpt from October 2009.

If you want to track the dueling bills, there is H.R. 1020 and Senate Bill 931.

An interesting point was raised by karlbayer.com suggesting that an amendment to another anti-arbitration bill, H.R. 3326 (preventing certain mandatory arbitration provisions in defense contractor employee contracts due to the Jamie Leigh Jones v. Halliburton matter), may have lead to a large number of supporters for H.R. 1020.

While HR 1020 does have a number of supporters, at least according to THOMAS, it has not moved significantly since the beginning of the year. A search on Google News for any update on the proposed Act yields little to no information.