Interesting. I guess then in that case the question would be why do the firms have such conditions to begin with? Isn't it better for all the companies to just make people pay the costs too?
http://www.vsb.org/docs/valawyermagazine/apr02kirsner.pdf
A cursory read suggests that having arbitration fees paid by the customer opens the door for them to ask the courts to throw out the arbitration clause; so it's safer to assume responsibility for the costs to ensure the clause remains enforceable.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-binding-arbitratio...
It's simple. The optimum situation from Amazon's point of view is a system that gives almost enough justice to avoid public outcry, and no more. The most outrageous cases should get paid a modest amount, average cases should get paid a tiny amount, and no stretch cases should get paid. Amazon anticipated that by paying for the arbitration process, they'd end up with a set of pro-Amazon arbitrators and that, in itself, would keep the number of cases filed to a minimum. What they didn't anticipate was enough people angry enough to file cases even in a biased system just to mess with the company.
In arbitration, you do not have a judge, so there isn't subpoena power, and discovery is extremely curtailed.
For the choices that matter to the arbitration firm, they absolutely do. Without a customer who is willing to initiate arbitration proceedings, there are no fees to be collected.
If there is a huge upfront financial burden to the customers, the customers are much more likely to just drop the whole matter. And while the businesses would absolutely consider consumers not pursuing grievances to be a win, the arbitration firm does have an incentive to actually have there be some arbitration.