| > 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.) |