People that purchase and utilize products and services, so sold by corporations, are invariably going to have those instances when there is something that seems to be not quite right about such a product or service experience. In those cases, in which the perceived injustice is slight, most people are just going to let it go, which is in virtually all cases, the most practical thing to do. On the other hand, there are also those breaches of good faith between consumer and vendor that are worth fighting back about; in which there has been a perceived wrong that the consumer wants to have their day in court, about. The problem is, that in many cases, nowadays, a given consumer, when they are so inclined to go to court, are compelled by the terms and conditions of the product or service so sold, to have such thereby adjudged instead through arbitration, as compared to a true court of law.
Arbitration is something that on the surface, sounds fair, almost as if it is a better way to cut through all the nonsense of courts, appeals, and delays, so as to get straight to the heart of the matter, through a supposed neutral party that will come to a sure and sound resolution. That is, what arbitration seems to be, but regrettably that isn’t what arbitration really is. The very first thing, is that those that do the arbitrating, though nominally neutral, are themselves almost always lawyers, and therefore inclined to be biased towards those of the same profession. Additionally, arbitrators know that the only entity that can ever give them any repeat or recommended business, such as consulting and the like, are corporations with corporate lawyers, so this thereby gives those arbitrators a self-serving reason to see things through the corporate lenses, as compared to the consumer. Finally, arbitration is not going to be a fair fight, for corporations have well-nigh unlimited resources that they can call upon, and the consumer has very little, of which, therefore the full truth of the matter so being disputed may not come even close to being illuminated through such arbitration.
It is also very important to note that corporations strongly prefer arbitration, because it basically allows them to circumvent formal litigation that could be rather dire for their corporation. Such as, for instance, class action suits, in which many consumers so experiencing the same problem or a similar one, join together with a legal team to pursue justice which can thereby result in an award to those consumers that can reached into the billions of dollars, which is thereby divided by all those party to that suit. Additionally, successful lawsuits against corporations, can set precedents which thereby serve to reform corporate malfeasance, as compared to such being swept under the rug and suppressed through private arbitration. So too, most consumers are limited in the amount of time and financial resources that they have to pursue any type of legal action, which is why the fact that there are lawyers who specialize in taking legal action against corporate wrongs, for no upfront money, but instead opt for a “piece of the action” clearly helps to level the playing field.
So then, though arbitration sounds fair to many consumers, especially since many people have no real love of the labyrinth of courts; it is, when utilized to resolve consumer complaints, typically not fair, and often a very poor substitute for fair legal action so conducted through the public court system.