Arbitration, even if it were fair (which it isn't, of course) is completely superfluous because (at least in the US) you're expected to already have attempted resolution outside the court system. The civil court system is the place of last resort for dispute resolution; you can't just immediately sue someone without the judge asking how you've attempted to resolve things.<p>There's this myth that the US is 'overly litigious' and it used to be that the McDonalds coffee burn case was cited as an example.<p>McDonalds knew they were serving well above industry standard temperatures for coffee, and I believe there had been other injuries.<p>The plaintiff (who was horrifically burned in her crotch) asked McDonalds only to be compensated for medical expenses for the initial medical treatment - she didn't ask for a dime in continuing/future medical expenses, pain/suffering despite enormous pain that was likely to continue for a while, not to mention the obvious lifelong problems with having, well, her gentils melted.<p>McDonalds refused that, figuring she'd either go away or they'd outspend her in court.<p>Which <i>enraged</i> the jury, and resulted in the massive punitive damages awarded to the plaintiff.<p>That brings me to the second point: the reason these arbitration clauses are popping up is because corporations are increasingly breaking laws / causing damages to people in pursuit of ever greater profit margins, and getting sued for it.<p>...which is exactly how things are supposed to work.<p>Maybe they should try <i>not fucking people over.</i>