I loved the thrust of this overall post, but I had thoughts about this paragraph: > In the US, it’s not easy to sue a company as a customer. Maybe about thirty

I loved the thrust of this overall post, but I had thoughts about this paragraph: > In the US, it’s not easy to sue a company as a customer. Maybe about thirty years ago, it became common for companies to put into contracts and terms of service, clauses that required binding arbitration to resolve disputes. This was cheaper for the company in many ways including a streamlined resolution process, cheaper lawyers, no sifting through frivolous lawsuits, and finality once a decision is made. It sucked for the consumer because it’s essentially a privatization of justice. The anti-arbitration vie of so many people has always struck me as odd. Wouldn't a "streamlined resolution process, cheaper lawyers, no sifting through frivolous lawsuits, and finality once a decision is made" benefit consumers at least as much as large corporations? The biggest downside seems to be lack of an appeals process, even though very few court decisions are overturned on appeal anyway, and in any case, the small claims type of actions would never be appealed due to cost. From what I can tell, the poster filed his claim online, provided very little evidence beyond alleging the specific contract sections that were violated (though I'm certain he had copious evidence if asked), and recovered almost all of his damages. The arbitration association even provided someone to follow up throughout the settlement process. IANAL, but I doubt any process in the entire country is so easy, and from what I've seen in class actions, the arbitration damage award was much, much higher. The difference between how easy the process was and the author's expectations is so stark that I almost wonder if the corporations themselves started the rumor about arbitration being terrible, if not the trial lawyers themselves.