Your position is a reasonable one, and it's beyond debating it on the internet to decide which one would be more practical -- it would depend on the situation,

Your position is a reasonable one, and it's beyond debating it on the internet to decide which one would be more practical -- it would depend on the situation, how much money you had, and how damaged you thought the system was. People could certainly disagree on their assessment. I tend to think that wrench throwing is more effective for systemic problems than discussing it. The assembly line is doing damage while you discuss the problem. That said, I'm also biased here: the lawsuits idea hits two of my pet peeves, in that it also forces debate around the issue of the justice system being chronically understaffed and underfunded. Filing that volume of lawsuits would effectively DDOS the courts (which is why they're going to hold you in contempt no matter how legal it was), but even doing due process on your contesting of that would likely drown the justice system to the point it forced a national debate over how it was operated. That's a resonant issue with the arbitration one, since the forced arbitration is a symptom of that deeper funding issue -- we don't invest in efficient civic infrastructure, so corporations built their own. tl;dr: Two birds, one stone; forcing instead of discussing; debating the underlying issue, not just a symptom.