> Forced arb was supposed to make things better. Do we have any evidence that it does, and for whom?
The primary goal is for businesses to escape accountability under the legal system, and I'm sure it does or they would stop pushing this nonsensical crap. And like always, if only individuals could similarly limit their liability in such ways, we would need a lot less insurance!
The only thing that would redeem arbitration is getting rid of mandatory arbitration. There is no problem with the possibility of being able to assent to binding arbitration once you've got a dispute, if both parties think it's beneficial. The problem is companies forcing these terms onto us ahead of time via the fallacy of contract, allowing to arbitration industry to function with perverse incentives.
The primary goal is for businesses to escape accountability under the legal system, and I'm sure it does or they would stop pushing this nonsensical crap. And like always, if only individuals could similarly limit their liability in such ways, we would need a lot less insurance!
The only thing that would redeem arbitration is getting rid of mandatory arbitration. There is no problem with the possibility of being able to assent to binding arbitration once you've got a dispute, if both parties think it's beneficial. The problem is companies forcing these terms onto us ahead of time via the fallacy of contract, allowing to arbitration industry to function with perverse incentives.