This is a HUGE issue in the USA, one which, apparently, too few people know about, or take seriously.
More and more companies are insisting on customers signing binding arbitration clauses as a condition of doing business: car dealers, banks, airlines, you mention it. It's all very well to say, well, don't do business with them, when all the competition are doing the exact same thing. If you need, say, a new car, well, good luck getting one without signing most of your rights away, and this is no exaggeration.
Binding mandatory arbitration clauses mean that you cannot sue the company, and agree to accept the verdict of the arbitrator, for which there is no appeal, and who is generally hired by the company having the arbitration dispute and is therefore impartial /s.
I have read FTC field reports about vehicle warranty claims where one arbitration decision was so outlandish even the FTC wrote that it was irrational, and the vast majority were in favor of the dealer.
More and more companies are insisting on customers signing binding arbitration clauses as a condition of doing business: car dealers, banks, airlines, you mention it. It's all very well to say, well, don't do business with them, when all the competition are doing the exact same thing. If you need, say, a new car, well, good luck getting one without signing most of your rights away, and this is no exaggeration.
Binding mandatory arbitration clauses mean that you cannot sue the company, and agree to accept the verdict of the arbitrator, for which there is no appeal, and who is generally hired by the company having the arbitration dispute and is therefore impartial /s.
I have read FTC field reports about vehicle warranty claims where one arbitration decision was so outlandish even the FTC wrote that it was irrational, and the vast majority were in favor of the dealer.