fyi, it was in the roaring 20's that the federal arbitration act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16) was passed (i.e., before our first crash). It says essentially that courts

fyi, it was in the roaring 20's that the federal arbitration act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16) was passed (i.e., before our first crash). It says essentially that courts cannot intervene when arbitration clause is valid, and indeed must enforce the results of arbitration. More recently, the Supreme Court held that a district court had to stay proceedings just because an appellate court was considering whether the arbitration clause was valid. So a hundred years later, it's being enforced to its fullest extent. The FCC has regulations against negative options, i.e., making a contract if you don't do something, but online companies seem to get away with changing terms and prices, and requiring you to cancel your subscription or reject new terms. To me it seems like a violation of contract to make a contract and then change the terms -- after the other party relies on the contract. But without any real damages, there's no money for attorneys to go up against the corporate attorneys, so the law continues to evolve in their favor.