> both parties have to have an understanding of what exactly is being agreed to An understanding that they will be undergoing arbitration is enough to satisfy

> both parties have to have an understanding of what exactly is being agreed to An understanding that they will be undergoing arbitration is enough to satisfy the "meeting of the minds" element, the fact that a lot of people have antifactual opinions about arbitration notwithstanding. >And BTW, the trend is new enough that individual companies are still shifting between having said clauses and not after getting slapped down (eg CapitalOne), and tinkering with said clauses in an attempt to make them hold up better (eg adding a 30 day opt out period from account opening). Yes, and this is primarily because of silly attacks on arbitration, and not because of actual facts. Judges are really bad at looking at facts -- this is one more area where arbitration tends to do far better. The average person loves rent control, too, but that doesn't stop them from being provably wrong.