THEY have to pay for arbitration. You don't need an attorney, and generally they'll just take care of you because it's cheaper than hiring an arbiter.

[–] funkycarrot@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Isn't forced arbitration when the jury deciding on the case is on the payroll of the company you're having the problem with in the first place?

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not exactly.

It's when there's a third-party arbiter. In the case of customers seeking damages against these companies, the arbitration agencies are paid for by the company, but often there's a list of arbiters the complainant can choose between.

My personal strategy has always been to pick the most expensive one so that whether I win or lose, the company stags to lose more money on the process than by simply making me whole.

The real reason for forced arbitration is because it makes DIY class action suits impossible.

Otherwise, a company with a class action waiver would find themselves facing 10,000 cases from the same law firm instead of 1 case with 10,000 plaintiffs.

With forced arbitration they can skip out on the cost process entirely and make the defendant do more leg work.

And, importantly, there's no precedent with arbitration. Losing the first case doesn't necessarily snowball into you losing the next 9,999 cases with identical facts.

[–] funkycarrot@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago

Ah, interesting...