I never said it was - I just tried to explain why it’s claimed to be a good thing. I think mandatory binding arbitration is a total sham and it’s completely anti-consumer. It plays on being some sort of big convenience for customers but in reality it’s really not that hard for an ordinary person to sue a company in small claims court and you don’t need an attorney to do this. It also has a minimal cost associated with it. Unlike mandatory arbitration, the proceedings are actually intended to be neutral. Consumerist had a few good articles on how to do this a while back:
Companies don’t like this. The burden is on the company that’s being sued to send a representative to court in the plaintiff’s county and if they don’t appear then the judgement defaults to the plaintiff.
Mandatory binding arbitration on the other hand may seem like a nice idea. The generous company foots the bill for the proceedings which are meant to make things fast and easy for you – no need to get a lawyer or have to further burden our already overtaxed court system with yet more litigation! If the judgement is in your favor, you win fabulous prizes! (Note: dripping sarcasm intended for the previous sentences.) In reality the deck is stacked so far in favor of the company that the consumer doesn’t really have much of a chance and if/when they lose there’s no recourse. Too bad and better luck next time.
