Amtrak passengers are no longer are able to sue the company for personal injury, discrimination, negligence, wrongful death or other claims, due to a change to ticket terms and conditions that instead mandates arbitration.

That would prevent passengers from seeking compensation from Amtrak in the case of crashes or accidents, such as the 2015 derailment in Philadelphia that killed eight people and left more than 200 injured. In 2016, Amtrak settled with survivors and passengers’ families for a record $265 million.

The terms and conditions that customers agree to every time they buy a train ticket now stipulate that claims “shall be decided by a single arbitrator through binding arbitration and not by a judge or jury.” Customers also waive the right to a class-action suit, leaving them with only the option to individually pursue arbitration, in which an appointed arbitrator rules on the claim and the remedy.

U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said Wednesday at a press conference at New Haven’s Union Station that the change is “unfair, unjust and un-American,” and called on Amtrak’s CEO to remove the clause.

“If they are injured or have any kind of legal claim, they will find they are barred from bringing a lawsuit against Amtrak. They have no day in court, and they have no right to go to a judge and seek justice,” he said.

“Now, the reason for this clause is pretty simple,” Blumenthal said. “Amtrak has been forced to pay settlements, some as large as $265 million, when people were injured or killed. Those kinds of claims are the result of Amtrak’s own failure to protect safety, and Amtrak should recognize its responsibility and eliminate this clause so that people have their basic day in court.”

Amtrak offered its own reasons.

“Contrary to what trial lawyers and others have recently asserted or implied, Amtrak did not develop its arbitration program for passenger claims in order to disadvantage passengers or escape liability or accountability for accidents,” Amtrak said in a statement. “In fact, our program expedites resolution of claims and reduces unnecessary litigation costs.”

The change to the terms and conditions was made quietly in January, attracting little attention. It was first reported by Politico earlier this month, and was then addressed briefly at U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee hearing a week later.

“As an attorney, I have always felt that forcing people into mandatory arbitration was a disincentive for rigorous safety precautions on the part of the operator or the manufacturer, because it limits the rights of the individuals injured passengers or workers, and that’s what I’m worried about,” U.S. Rep. Charles Lynch, D-Mass., said at the hearing. “Mandatory arbitration is not the right thing.”

Amtrak President and CEO Richard Anderson replied that employees in the industry “are all subject to binding arbitration,” and said he disagreed with Lynch.

Fourteen lawmakers, including Blumenthal, are calling on Amtrak to eliminate the clause.

If Amtrak does not act to remove the clause on its own, “we will pass legislation to force its elimination, such as was done with the airline industry,” Blumenthal said Wednesday. The Department of Transportation issued rules in 2011 banning airlines from including pre-dispute arbitration agreement provisions in their contracts of carriage, to which customers must agree when they purchase tickets.

Agreements like Amtrak’s aren’t uncommon, but this one is “unusually broad and detailed,” according to Peter Kochenburger, an associate clinical professor at University of Connecticut School of Law. “Amtrak is deliberately trying to go as broad as possible and sweep in as many possible disputes that could arise as it can.”

“All of us, as consumers, are signing similar agreements every day,” he said, by agreeing to terms and conditions on everything from credit cards and rental cars to software downloads.

Companies benefit from arbitration, rather than litigation, because it can be cheaper and faster than going to trial, and because an arbitrator may have more specific knowledge and expertise about the issue than a judge, he said.

But there’s “a growing amount of research” that shows clauses like Amtrak’s disadvantage consumers, he said.

Arbitration “works well” and can be “very efficient” in resolving disputes between companies, said Charles Pillsbury, co-director of Quinnipiac University School of Law’s Center on Dispute Resolution.

It’s also difficult to appeal, Pillsbury said, which is beneficial in commercial dealings but makes it harder when customers are involved. In a court case, parties can appeal to a higher court if they feel the judge has misinterpreted the law, but to challenge an arbitration ruling, “you have to show, essentially, fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the arbitrator,” he said.

Preventing class-action suits also benefits companies by lessening the likelihood that passengers will seek arbitration on their own, Pillsbury and Kochenberger said.

“People might have a claim, but they can’t afford to or it’s not worth it to pursue individually,” Kochenberger said. They might pursue it as a class-action case with other plaintiffs, but Amtrak’s rules make that impossible, which “is going to reduce the number of suits, and it’s less of a threat,” he said.

In a lengthy terms and conditions document that customers are “as a practical matter, very unlikely to read,” they’re giving up a constitutional right to a trial by jury, he said.

“Consumers are left completely unprotected,” Pillsbury said.

States have tried to protect consumers by passing legislation against arbitration agreements like Amtrak’s, he said, but that’s not allowed because the Federal Arbitration Act preempts those laws. “It has to be done by Congress,” he said.

Liz.Teitz@hearstmediact.com