1) Someone who has no choice e.g. there are no "honest" courts, or all service providers with whom an individual could contract with demand the right to choose

1) Someone who has no choice e.g. there are no "honest" courts, or all service providers with whom an individual could contract with demand the right to choose courts of arbitration. 2) First, this is an unsubstantiated statement of faith. Second, we're not talking about bribes but systemic bias i.e. the entire private court is lopsided. You're thinking that the problem would be of the form of "I'll just pay judge X to render my preferred verdict." I'm talking about a problem of "all courts have a fundamentally pro-business bias and impose a severe burden of proof on plaintiffs pursuing business defendants." 3) Again, bribery is not the issue. Selection of the judges is the issue. 4) And in which court will these suits be heard!? Perhaps you think that there will simply be other private court systems set up with select mostly "liberal" judges. Who will pay for these? Wealthy individuals? And which business would insist on being heard in these courts? As it stands, almost every large business with whom you contract has an arbitration clause which you accept when you engage them. Those clauses always reserve for themselves the right to select the arbitration venue. Why would that change? Which business would ever decide to concede that right, or to choose a consumer-friendly venue?