NACA is not exactly unbiased, since it's mainly consumer class action lawyers. They also make some claims that are not really true: "Individuals often have to

NACA is not exactly unbiased, since it's mainly consumer class action lawyers. They also make some claims that are not really true: "Individuals often have to pay a large fee simply to initiate the arbitration process. " Please pick any large company you desire to ever sue (amazon, ebay, general mills, etc). I challenge you to find a single one that requires you pay for the arbitration process in all but frivolous cases. Let's take Amazon's: "Payment of all filing, administration and arbitrator fees will be governed by the AAA's rules. We will reimburse those fees for claims totaling less than $10,000 unless the arbitrator determines the claims are frivolous. Likewise, Amazon will not seek attorneys' fees and costs in arbitration unless the arbitrator determines the claims are frivolous. You may choose to have the arbitration conducted by telephone, based on written submissions," Paypal goes further, in fact: "If the value of the relief sought is more than $10,000 and you are able to demonstrate that the costs of arbitration will be prohibitive as compared to the costs of litigation, PayPal will pay as much of the filing, administration, and arbitrator fees as the arbitrator deems necessary to prevent the arbitration from being cost-prohibitive" NACA's next complaint is that you don't get an in-person hearing, but at the same time complains about the expense of arbitration? This is non-sensical. Naca also makes some more falsehoods: "Forced arbitration clauses generally bind the consumer—not the company. The way many forced arbitration clauses are written, the seller retains its rights to take any complaint to court while the consumer can only initiate arbitration. " Again, i've yet to see any of these. Amazon's doesn't. Maybe paypal, that bastion of horribleness, says something here: " You and PayPal each agree that any and all disputes or claims that have arisen or may arise between you and PayPal shall be resolved exclusively through final and binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court, if your claims qualify. The Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement to Arbitrate." Whoops, nope, they agree to arbitration bilaterally too (they also agree to pay the fees) They cite exactly zero examples of any of these claims, btw. Part of my life is reviewing TOS'en, and i've got to have reviewed thousands. I have not seen any that are either unilateral, or where you would pay fees. All I ask is for one example :) I also doubt such a thing would be upheld even under current supreme court precedent. The rest of the NACA complaints basically come down "you can't take them to court". Which is yes, the point of arbitration. To avoid the cost of court. The truth is, NACA doesn't like arbitration because the lawyers involved in it are class action lawyers. Shocking.