> What a weird take this is. There's no need to look for monsters under the bed. The much simpler explanation is that arbitration interests are aligned between

> What a weird take this is. There's no need to look for monsters under the bed. The much simpler explanation is that arbitration interests are aligned between the State and businesses -- lower caseload for an already overworked court system, and lower costs for business. Since those are the groups with power in the situation, it is only logical that they would choose arbitration. These two explanations aren't even contradictory unless the state is motivated by profit, which it clearly isn't, so your comment seems like a bit of a red herring. Your comment makes an implicit assumption that the goal of the state ought to be maximizing its revenue to expenses ratio. Some (e.g., the writers of the US constitution and the bill of rights) believe the state's interests ought to be aligned with those of the underlying population. When the goal of the state flips from "profit" to "maximize general welfare", it's no longer obvious that "decreasing court expenses" at the expense of "eroding consumer protections" is necessarily in the state's best interest.