Legally, I think arbitration clauses probably will hold up. As you said, both parties have agreed to them. The problem is that, currently, I can't get wireles

Legally, I think arbitration clauses probably will hold up. As you said, both parties have agreed to them. The problem is that, currently, I can't get wireless from Sprint, ATT or Verizon without signing away my right to sue. If this is the case, I feel like I have been forced into signing an arbitration clause (I don't really have a choice not to have a phone). Comcast allows me to opt out (though at the time I didn't realize this was an option). At what point am I no longer able to make a choice to live a life without entering into an arbitration agreement with someone, and if that point comes, have my rights been violated? Technically, I've entered into a contract for a service. However, if every contract for that service includes an arbitration clause, I no longer have a choice, and I haven't really "opted in" to the arbitration process, because I can't "opt out". I'm pretty sure this isn't a valid legal argument, but that doesn't make it right. At the very least, controls need to be put into place to make sure that arbitration is neutral: otherwise the clauses are similar to a clause that says "if you wish to sue us, we win by default: tough shit", which feels like it should be illegal (or unenforceable).