The one key point you miss is it is the companies that insert mandatory arbitration clauses that get to pick and choose arbitrators. Why should an arbitrator ru

The one key point you miss is it is the companies that insert mandatory arbitration clauses that get to pick and choose arbitrators. Why should an arbitrator rule against the company that is employing them, especially as it virtually ensures the company will not do so in the future? Arbitration is really only fair and effective between equal peers that can choose to split the costs of the arbitration, and agree upon an arbitrator together. In cases of arbitration between a large entity and a single small customer, the large entity wins virtually every single time. The top 10 arbitration firms in the USA only rule in the favor of the consumer/employee 1.6% of the time [1] There's not a single health plan available in many states that does not require agreeing to binding arbitration for coverage. None of them allow you to opt out, even if you're willing to pay more. Sign away your right to sue, or no coverage for you. Consider that under health care reform, one is required to purchase one of these plans. There are dozens of industries that are like this, where it is virtually impossible to receive a service or a good of that class without agreeing to mandatory binding arbitration, such as residential ISPs. Add into the fact there is almost no way to appeal decisions, make no mistake, Instagram is not doing this for your benefit. The term "kangaroo court" comes to mind. [1] http://consumerist.com/2007/07/26/support-the-arbitration-fairness-act/ http://consumerist.com/2007/07/26/support-the-arbitration-fa...