[dakial1]

I never understood this "Anything goes Term & Conditions" in the US.

Like, can a bank legally put that they can close account without notification in their T&C? Isn't there a regulator that would control these and fine the banks?

The binding arbitration clause (or privatized justice system) is another thing that I can't believe the US population never rebelled against...

[BobaFloutist]

Terms and conditions are weird, because by and large (in the US) judges have determined that they don't really let the companies do anything that they wouldn't be allowed to do otherwise (except I guess forced arbitration), but they keep filling them with borderline illegal requirements and litigate them line-by-line when it comes up.

The main thing is any company can start denying you service whenever they want as long as it's not for a protected reason, and then it's up to you to prove in the court of law (or arbitration) that they didn't specifically screw you over in any particular way, which is usually not worth the hassle.

[averageRoyalty]

Have you reviewed your banks T&Cs?

This happened to me a decade ago (not in the US), and I was surprised to find that every bank in the country had similar provisions in place. I'd be surprised if yours doesn't too.

[dakial1]

In the country I live in (Brazil) the arbitration clause would go against the Consumer Law that says:

"Are null or void, Contractual clauses relating to the supply of products and services that [...] imply a waiver or provision of rights."

Access to justice being a right, arbitration clauses that forbid the consumer to go to the judiciary system are not valid. They can offer it, but not force it.