[1] https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/i-fought-the-paypal-and-i...
[1] https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/i-fought-the-paypal-and-i...
There are legitimate reasons companies pushed for arbitrtion. Namely streamlining and keeping away frivolous lawsuits, but there's the side bonus (for them) of scaring people away. Like that author described, companies make arbitration out to be this big, scary, unwinnable process, but it's really not like that at all.
Unfortunately I can't share the details, but someone I know filed a wrongful termination case against a large tech company. They dragged it out for two years with motion after motion, running up his legal bills every month. He hung in there and won eventually.
So don't assume they'll just roll over and settle.
Your second phrase does not follow from the first one, at least I can't follow it.
If the judge doesn't override the arbiter most of the times, doesn't that implicitly make arbitration... legally binding?