For many years, New Jersey's courts have endorsed contract terms that can limit the consumer’s access to the courthouse with provisions that require arbitration. The general philosophy of these cases is that the arbitration process is a favored process, largely because arbitration avoids the profligation of public and private resources.

Last summer, the Supreme Court addressed the validity of a clause in a consumer contract that limited the liability of a gym for injuries resulting from the use of the gym’s equipment or when participating in its classes and concluded that clauses of that nature are valid, stating in essence, that "when a party enters into a signed, written contract, that parties presumed to understand and assent to its terms, unless fraudulent conduct is suspected."

This case has motivated certain legislators to draft a bill that would invalidate any consumer contract that would require the consumer to waive rights under various statute conceived to protect the consumer, including New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act. (CFA).  The statute would also render invalid any contract that would bar a consumer from reporting illicit conduct to various law enforcement agencies.