If you’re being sued for credit card debt by a company like Midland Funding, Portfolio Recovery, LVNV, Cavalry, or Jefferson Capital, you may have more leverage than you think.

Two strategic options often come up:

• Forcing arbitration
• Requesting a jury trial

Both can change the economics of the case.

But they are very different tools.

Here’s how to evaluate which strategy makes sense.

First: What Are You Trying to Accomplish?

Before choosing a tactic, ask:

• Do I want dismissal?
• Do I want settlement leverage?
• Do I want to increase plaintiff costs?
• Do I want to challenge weak documentation?
• Do I want a jury to hear this?

Your goal determines the tool.

What Happens If You Force Arbitration?

If the credit card agreement contains an arbitration clause, you may be able to file a motion to compel arbitration.

That means:

• The court case is paused or dismissed.
• The dispute moves to AAA or JAMS.
• The debt buyer must pay arbitration administrative fees.
• There is no jury.
• The case becomes private.

Why Arbitration Can Pressure Debt Buyers

Debt buyers operate on volume.

Court is cheap.
Defaults are common.
Hearings are streamlined.

Arbitration changes that:

• AAA consumer filing fees for businesses can reach thousands.
• Arbitrator hourly compensation adds additional cost.
• Administrative fees apply.
• The case becomes less predictable.

For smaller balances, some debt buyers reassess whether it’s worth continuing.

Risks of Arbitration

• No jury trial.
• Limited appeal rights.
• Limited discovery in some cases.
• You still must defend the case.

Arbitration is not automatic dismissal — it is a forum shift.

What Happens If You Request a Jury Trial?

Instead of moving to arbitration, some defendants demand a jury trial.

This keeps the case in court but changes the dynamics.

Why Jury Trial Can Be Strategic

Jury trials:

• Increase litigation complexity.
• Require more preparation.
• Raise plaintiff costs.
• Slow the process.
• Introduce unpredictability.

Debt buyers prefer fast bench trials or default judgments.

A jury trial forces them to prove:

• The contract
• The balance
• The chain of assignment
• Their standing

In front of citizens, not just a judge.

Risks of a Jury Trial

• Jury trial fees may apply.
• It may lengthen the case.
• If documentation is strong, the plaintiff may still win.
• It requires preparation and courtroom presentation.

It is leverage — not immunity.

Arbitration vs Jury Trial: Side-by-Side Comparison

When Arbitration May Be Better

• Balance is relatively small.
• Documentation appears weak.
• You want to increase plaintiff administrative costs.
• The arbitration clause clearly applies to successors and assigns.

When Jury Trial May Be Better

• Documentation is questionable.
• You want a public proceeding.
• You believe the plaintiff cannot properly explain chain of title.
• You want to increase litigation risk and preparation burden.

Can You Do Both?

Generally, no.

If you compel arbitration successfully, you waive jury trial.

If you proceed in court and litigate extensively, you may waive arbitration.

Timing matters.

Strategic Reality

Debt buyers rely on:

• Defaults
• Fear
• Consumers not responding
• Quick bench proceedings

When you:

• File an Answer
• Demand proof
• Consider arbitration
• Consider jury trial

You disrupt their model.

The goal is leverage — not theatrics.

Final Takeaway

Arbitration and jury trial are both strategic tools.

Neither is automatically better.

The right choice depends on:

• Contract language
• Amount at issue
• Strength of documentation
• Your litigation goals
• Local court procedures

Used correctly, either can shift the power dynamic in a debt buyer lawsuit.