> The question in the case is not whether they are allowed to kick him off. The question is whether each of his Patreon subscribers can bring them to arbitratio

> The question in the case is not whether they are allowed to kick him off. The question is whether each of his Patreon subscribers can bring them to arbitration for interfering in their "business relationship". It's possible that every arbitration case could be found in Patreon's favor, but it will still cost them money. No, not quite. The question as adjudicated is whether a company that mandates a fairly specific arbitration process as a condition of using that company's services can unilaterally change the terms after becoming aware of imminent legal action being taken under those terms, whether significant fees that constitute a liability for the company are "irreparable harm" and then whether the courts or arbitrators are the ones who decide jurisdiction issues. Anyone can take any legal action they like if they file the paperwork properly and pay the fees, but have no guarantees of success. Also, I'm not sure Patreon's changes are actually enforceable (though I doubt any sane lawyer would want to test that before prevailing on a tortuous interference claim). Specifically, I doubt Patreon can require consumers to pay legal fees for arbitration beyond what CA law provides. I'm also not sure whether Patreon can carve out this exception to tortious interference actions this way, though a contract could in principle waive certain legal rights like the ability to sue over torts. Regardless, I think it's likely that anyone demanding individual arbitration's in CA could be liable whether or not they erred to the degree Patreon did.