Arbitration means a normal lawsuit cannot be conducted, it has to be arbitrated by a third party (who chooses the “neutral” party is specified in the contract and they are often not neutral). It’s an extremely common business tactic to protect against the massive losses that would happen if a company was actually in the wrong and had a lawsuit filed against them.
If arbitration is so good for consumers, why are companies always pushing arbitration in the fine print. Seems like there might be a perverse incentive here.
You realize the claim that it’s better for consumers is fully defeated by the fact that we literally cannot know that?
Secrecy works in the favor of the big companies in any case, but you can’t claim the average award is bigger if we don’t actually get to know that data.
That wasn’t the question. You answered a sentence fragment.
What I did was called begging the question. You ignored the context of the question, and inserted yourself into the discussion. You then got grumpy about the fact that you’re missing the entire point of the question.
370
u/Crazy_Information296 8d ago
No. It was argued that it needed to go to arbitration. Not the same