Responding to their contention that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was intended to facilitate disputes between commercial entities, AFSA asserts that Congress specifically intended that the FAA apply to individuals. As support for its position, AFSA cites to Justice Breyer's observation in Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995) regarding the potential advantages of arbitration for individuals. AFSA also challenges the AGs' contention that mandatory pre-dispute arbitration is procedurally unfair to consumers and jeopardizes the right of consumers to seek judicial redress, citing to further observations of Justice Breyer in Terminix regarding the many advantages of arbitration. AFSA comments that given the workload of overburdened state courts, the AGs' conclusion that courts provide a better avenue of consumer redress for small dollar cases is "inconceivable."