Buy a car, change cell phone plans or open a new credit card and you'll likely be required to sign a lengthy contract that — let's be honest here — you're never going to read.

Increasingly, those terms and conditions include provisions that prevent you from suing the big companies that wrote the contracts. Instead, you can try to get satisfaction through arbitration. Good luck.

Forced consumer arbitration isn't new, but it is becoming more and more common. Yet that could change, as consumer groups opposed to the practice say they have never been closer to victory.

A 2009 study by the consumer-advocacy group Public Citizen took a look at just how widespread forced, predispute arbitration agreements have become. The group found that consumers' access to the courts were stymied by arbitration clauses in contracts offered by three-quarters of the companies it examined from eight dispute-prone industries — including computer makers, brokerages, home builders and providers of cable and Internet service.

Lawyer Mitchell Stoddard often represents St. Louis-area consumers who feel ripped off but can't go to the courts. He said he has handled more than 30 forced, consumer-arbitration cases, and business is booming.

"Ten years ago, when I started doing this, one out of every 30 companies had (forced) arbitration," said Stoddard, who supports banning forced arbitration. "Now, maybe one out of 30 doesn't."

Arbitration supporters might consider that a victory. After all, the whole idea of arbitration was to take cases out of the courts, where litigation costs drive up everyone's costs and cases can be dragged out for years.

There is, of course, a downside.

Critics say arbitration intimidates consumers into never starting the process. Filing fees and other arbitration costs can add up, easily exceeding the amount of money that is in dispute. Lawyers often are reluctant to take on arbitration cases, especially when they are over low-dollar disputes and contracts prohibit lawyers from grouping similarly situated clients into a class arbitration.

Even when consumers start the arbitration process, they find the odds are stacked in favor of big companies, said David Arkush, the director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch. After all, companies typically select which arbitration company will be used, and that decision isn't arbitrary.

"The arbitration companies' entire business depends on companies choosing them," Arkush said, adding that companies involved in disputes will select arbitration firms that seem most sympathetic to big business.

Even when a consumer wins in arbitration, it doesn't help the rest of us.

A loss in arbitration may not encourage a company to change flawed or fraudulent business practices. The proceedings are secret, so they are not likely to cause bad publicity. More importantly, arbitration doesn't develop case law.

A victory in one arbitration case can't be cited in a similar one. And, because an arbiter lacks the authority of a judge, they can't order companies to change how they do business.

That issue was at the heart of a story I wrote for last Sunday's paper. Lawyers representing title-loan borrowers say lenders aren't following a Missouri law that is supposed to protect consumers from being saddled with high-interest debt they can't pay off. Regulators disagree, and the borrowers can't get a day in court.

The Missouri Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on whether it should invalidate any part of the title lender's forced arbitration agreement, which prohibits lawsuits and bans borrowers from banding together in a class arbitration.

That case potentially could have a big effect on consumer-arbitration rules here, but other changes could be brewing in Washington.

On July 12, the Federal Trade Commission sharply criticized forced arbitration between consumers and debt collectors. It said the proceedings were often biased.

A bill before Congress would ban predispute, forced arbitration from all consumer and employment disputes.

Federal regulators, however, no longer need congressional approval to ban most forced arbitration. That power was vested in the consumer financial protection bureau, the new federal agency created as part of the sweeping financial reforms signed into law last month.

The bureau is required by that law to study the issue. Afterward, it will have the authority to ban the practice.