> And of course arbitration is not supposed to be completely controlled by one of the parties. It may be in fact, but it’s not supposed to be. When the arbitrat

> And of course arbitration is not supposed to be completely controlled by one of the parties. It may be in fact, but it’s not supposed to be. When the arbitration is between equals, it’s probably pretty fair; when it’s unilateral, it may not be. When one party demands arbitration and has the deeper pockets, it is likely to fund the arbitration process - it's unclear how fairness can be reached. I have seen this play out with an insurance company in the UK. The insurer have offered to pay 25% of a vehicles market value after complete destruction, a value too low to buy any comparable vehicle. The only recourse is to offer quotes for similar vehicles to their 'arbitration team'. They then decide what is offered. If you remain unhappy and reject the offer you get nothing, there are no other options available. They offered a £50 'good will gesture' which was also rejected. There is an ombudsman, but they really don't care and side with the insurer, stating that £50 was a reasonable compensation. I spit blood and feathers at any suggestion that an arbitration controlled by the company is not going to lead to corruption. It needs to be a truly unbiased third-party. I feel sorry for the family who have suffered such a loss, and now have an almighty uphill battle against Disney.