In the past decade, debate on the fairness of pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate has intensified. Recently, Congress has joined the chorus of opposition to these agreements and is attempting to outlaw them via the proposed Arbitration Fairness Act (AFA). Both proponents and critics of the AFA, including certain members of Congress, take hard-line stances on the perceived ills or benefits of arbitration rather than trying to address some of its criticisms while simultaneously preserving some of its benefits. The purpose of this Comment is twofold: first, it is a response to Congress’ rash and overbroad response to outlaw pre-dispute agreements; second, it is an attempt to salvage some of the benefits of pre-dispute agreements while ameliorating some of the critics’ concerns about its pitfalls. This Comment proposes that businesses should shoulder the costs associated with arbitration and that an institutional middle-man should be involved in arbitral proceedings. These proposals will help both balance the disproportionate influence of businesses in the proceedings and eliminate the potential for arbitrator bias with which critics and Congress take issue.