In the case of Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama and Green Tree Financial Corporation v. Larketta Randolph, 2000, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding arbitration agreements in contracts. The plaintiff, Larketta Randolph, had signed a contract with Green Tree that included an arbitration clause but later filed suit against them for violating the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). She argued that she should not be compelled to arbitrate because her agreement did not specify who would bear the costs of arbitration which could potentially be prohibitively high. However, the court held by a 5-4 majority that silence or ambiguity in an arbitration agreement about cost allocation does not render it unenforceable under federal law. It was noted though this might affect whether such agreements are enforceable under state laws depending upon their specific provisions related to unconscionability.

In the dissenting opinion for Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama and Green Tree Financial Corporation v. Larketta Randolph, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately protect consumers from potentially prohibitive arbitration costs. She contended that by not requiring companies to disclose potential arbitration costs in their contracts, they were effectively discouraging individuals from pursuing legitimate claims due to fear of excessive fees. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority's view that concerns about cost should be addressed after an agreement is made rather than before it is enforced. In her view, this approach was inconsistent with federal law which requires full disclosure of all terms and conditions at the time a contract is signed.