When will a judge just strike down this binding arbitration scheme in general? The setup of binding arbitration goes against the fundamental idea of a <i>contract</i> by handing the power of interpretation to an agent of one of the parties.<p>The groups pushing this nonsense seem to have regrouped at "you agree to arbitration unless you send us a notice to opt out in this small timeframe", adding complexity in an attempt to create something legally defensible. But there is still no consideration for accepting that specific provision besides "ha-ha got you", so it clearly won't last either. We just have to put up with it until the right test case and judge comes along.<p>With what we know about computational complexity, there really needs to be an explicit disincentive for drafters to contracts, contracts of adhesion especially, to not attempt these types of hostile terms in the first place.