1. Arbitration is going to potentially save hundreds of thousands of dollars down the line if there's a legal issue.
2. Arbitration incredibly favors the company over the customer.
3. Most customers don't understand the value of their right to civil action.
So while an arbitration clause is, in my mind, equivalent to telling your customers you don't actually care about being reliable, many companies are putting them into place just because they can.
#1 is false. Ask Google or Apple or JPMorgan Chase -- who get sued frequently, yet don't bother with arb clauses
#2 is true in most instances, but in order to find out you have to actually go through the entire arbitration and pay your lawyers' bills
#3 is very true, but that only adds to the idea that it's unethical.
Companies put them in because the corporate defense bar thinks this is the new hotness -- and few of those folks have ever actually litigated any of these clauses.
I worry when people brush aside ethics concerns without deep concern about the consequences. I'm not arguing for or against arbitration, I'm not well enough informed. I'm arguing against claiming you have to take an action you believe to be unethical simply because of the gain involved.
1. Arbitration is going to potentially save hundreds of thousands of dollars down the line if there's a legal issue.
2. Arbitration incredibly favors the company over the customer.
3. Most customers don't understand the value of their right to civil action.
So while an arbitration clause is, in my mind, equivalent to telling your customers you don't actually care about being reliable, many companies are putting them into place just because they can.