Ginsburg, J., dissenting
first principle” that “arbitration is strictly a matter of consent,” ante, at 7 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted), to justify imposing individual arbitration on employees who surely would not choose to proceed solo. Respondent Frank Varela sought redress for negligence by his employer leading to a data breach affecting 1,300 employees. See Complaint in No. 5:16–cv–00577 (CD Cal.), Doc. 1, ¶¶1, 59. The widely experienced neglect he identified cries out for collective treatment. Blocking Varela’s path to concerted action, the Court aims to ensure the authenticity of consent to class procedures in arbitration. Ante, at 7–8. Shut from the Court’s sight is the “Hobson’s choice” employees face: “accept arbitration on their employer’s terms or give up their jobs.” Epic, 584 U. S., at ___, n. 2 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 7, n. 2); see Circuit City, 532 U. S., at 139 (Souter, J., dissenting) (employees often “lack the bargaining power to resist an arbitration clause if their prospective employers insist on one”).
Recent developments outside the judicial arena ameliorate some of the harm this Court’s decisions have occasioned. Some companies have ceased requiring employees to arbitrate sexual harassment claims, see McGregor, Firms May Follow Tech Giants on Forced Arbitration, Washington Post, Nov. 13, 2018, p. A15, col. 1, or have extended their no-forced-arbitration policy to a broader range of claims, see Wakabayashi, Google Scraps Forced Arbitration Policy, N. Y. Times, Feb. 22, 2019, p. B5, col. 4. And some States have endeavored to safeguard employees’ opportunities to bring sexual harassment suits in court. See, e. g., N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law Ann. §7515 (West 2019) (rendering unenforceable certain mandatory arbitration clauses covering sexual harassment claims). These developments are sanguine, for “[p]lainly, it would not comport with the congressional objectives behind a statute seeking to enforce civil rights… to allow the very forces that had
