That seems unfairly stacked in favor of the defense. If they refuse to pay for the arbitration, that should be the same as if they just refuse to show up to court, i.e. default judgement in favor of the plaintiff.
They rely on the appearance of fairness to enable corporations to use their services against consumers/employees. If they aren't careful there is a risk of the courts increasingly observing how tipped the scales of arbitration are.
The jurisprudence, to the limited extent I understand it, relies on the assertion that arbitration is fair. Upholding that believe is in the arbitrators interest.
This is misleading, neither America nor any other country has a justice system. Justice is often a goal of the legal system but it is not a direct attribute of the system.
So, buried in size 3 font on page 355 of a document included by reference in the 200 page TOS and that can be found at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard" -- that one is to have read in full by legal counsel before spending $30/month on internet access?
Right.
I know that courts know about contracts of adhesion, but suggesting that there's anything mutual about them is absolutely grounds for a little prodding.
If you do end up in court, it's another $20k just for JAMS fees. Again, non-refundable, doesn't matter if you win or lose.
So if someone is trying to take you to arbitration over less than $20k, it really doesn't matter AT ALL if they are right or not, it makes sense to settle for whatever amount you can convince them to agree to.
You can kill a company with frivolous arbitrations, just by having enough people willing to file one. Doesn't matter if those people have been wronged.