[JumpCrisscross]

> Arbitration often means that you can not even discuss the case

This is immaterial to 90% of consumer disputes. (You can always still report to a regulator, which covers 90% of the remainder.)

> lot of the reason coorperations [sic] don't do questionable things is because of the PR backlash

Citation needed.

> you have to choose whether you will take them to the arbitrator or raise awareness in public

Right. You maintain the choice to do what, again, 99% of disputes don’t do. Or to bind a wealthier counterparty to a process they typically pay for and in which they can’t deploy starvation tactics.

> it's typically chase that chooses who decides the case

Which arbitration service lets either party chose the arbitrator?

Genuinely, ask your lawyer for advice. Most people knee-jerkedly rejecting arbitration haven’t asked a lawyer, probably don’t have one in the first place, and are clearly of de minimus legal or PR threat to a firm like Chase. In the event of a serious dispute, corporate counsel will note that to decision makers.

[casualscience]

There is no US law which is written statistically. I disagree with your '90%' characterization, but let's run with that. Would you be happy if our murder laws were 90%? Most of the time you can be prosecuted, but 10% of the time we let you go?

What if 10% of the time, we just said 'we won't investigate companies' when they break the rules, would that be good for you? What if those 10% of the time were typically the most egregious cases?

> Citation needed.

Citation: The existence of PR teams????

> Which arbitration service lets either party chose the arbitrator?

Who chooses the service (hint: it's almost always the company)? What are the rules for what constitutes an 'arbitration service'?

If you had any 'choice' in the matter, you'd only engage in an arbitration agreement if it benefits both sides. The way corporations use the law is to benefit them at your expense. I don't want an arb agreement, but they do, so I have to take it or suddenly I don't have easy access to my bank anymore, if I have access at all.

> Genuinely, ask your lawyer for advice. Most people knee-jerkedly rejecting arbitration haven’t asked a lawyer, probably don’t have one in the first place, and are clearly of de minimus legal or PR threat to a firm like Chase. In the event of a serious dispute, corporate counsel will note that to decision makers.

I have talked to lawyers about this, and most of them agree with all of my criticisms.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Would you be happy if our murder laws were 90%?

We're talking about consumer disputes, not crimes. If there's a crime, again, you can loop in a regulator and law enforcement.

> What if those 10% of the time were typically the most egregious cases?

Again, nothing prevents you from making a public stink before submitting to arbitration. You can have your cake and eat it, too.

Also, false economy. The trade-off isn't between 100% and 90%. It's between 90% having a chance, versus something like 5% of the population having the ability to pursue minor civil claims through the courts.

> Who chooses the service (hint: it's almost always the company)? What are the rules for what constitutes an 'arbitration service'?

Courts have defined what constitutes a genuine arbitration service. Again, there is case law and there are data around this.

> have talked to lawyers about this, and most of them agree with all of my criticisms

Sure, I do too. It's theoretically flawed. But so are our courts.

For the average American, what's their advice? (In cases where I think I may have major claims, e.g. with insurers, I opt out of arbitration. But for checking accounts? Arbitration, all the way.)