But there is nothing special about Uber, or the arbitration clause, or the contract in this regard. So why is the headline written as it is and why are you insi

But there is nothing special about Uber, or the arbitration clause, or the contract in this regard. So why is the headline written as it is and why are you insisting on this way of framing the argument. You are choosing to characterize the normal enforcement of contract law as something extraordinary and by the choice of words framing this as something that is unfair. At least that is how I interpret your wording and how I also interpreted the headline. The fact that this particular contract involves Uber and drivers and an arbitration clause is irrelevant to the larger idea that contracts are indeed enforceable. That shouldn't really be news.