[rhino369]

>Arbitrators must be agreed to by both parties, but companies are the primary repeat customers of arbitrators and will NOT select arbitrators that don't usually and regularly find for them.

Is there any empirical evidence of this? I've done arbitration twice and the arbitrators seemed pretty impartial.

Most people just go with AAA arbitrators, which are well respected.

I've seen my colleges ask for information about potential arbitrators (I'm an lawyer but I don't specialize in arbitration), and never has anyone even suggested that an arbitrator was a company man or anything like that.

We need a low cost alternative to court. Courts apply strict procedural and eventuality rules and engage in broad discovery that really increases the cost of a case. A case costs tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

My biggest problem is that arbitration isn't really all that much cheaper than court in many cases now.

I think it would be interesting to have an online arbitration process for disputes under 10 thousand dollars. Both sides upload a memo arguing their side and attach accompanying documentation and evidence including sworn statements by witnesses. The arbitrator decides if a hearing is needed and if it is they do a video chat hearing.

[trhway]

>I've done arbitration twice and the arbitrators seemed pretty impartial.

...

>I'm an lawyer

well, professionals typically treat each other much better. Another example would be imagine a doctor treating another doctor :)

>I think it would be interesting to have an online arbitration process for disputes under 10 thousand dollars.

well, Small Claims, while not online, is a pretty convenient and fast venue for such scale.

[massysett]

It wouldn't matter if arbitration is just as fair as courts. The real problem is that the arbitration clauses do not permit class actions. This gives corporations license to rip consumers off as long as each individual ripoff is so small that it's not worth it for the consumer to litigate or arbitrate.

[roel_v]

Do you feel the online aspect of such a procedure would make things materially cheaper? In other words, are the costs really in the time spend in court, or is it maybe that preparations for oral arguments are much more expensive?

I'm asking because my experiences with Dutch law are very different from what you describe (I have a law degree but I do not practice). Pretty much all civil procedures are done in writing here, and it's quite possible to go through a whole case for (much) less than USD10k (even when hourly rates are > USD200).

Of course, a case about an unpaid utility bill is very different from the example the GP gave, if an elderly patient gets hurt in a retirement home. In such cases you might need days or weeks of expert witness time @ 1 or 2 k per day. But that wouldn't be cheaper if the proceeding were done electronically.