said by jhboricua:You really don't know. I suspect the average case goes like this: said by MyDogHsFleas:
What would the percentage have to be for you to consider the arbitration not to be "stacked against the consumer"?
0%. The mere fact that big corps want to erode consumer rights by trying to impose binding arbitration by a company they PAID says enough.
Wow. Just wow.
How do you justify 95% in favor of the business?
I don't have to. I was commenting on a supposed "news report" that ASSUMED that 95% was biased. My simple question is: how do you justify that? Still no answer.
said by MyDogHsFleas:
How do you know that 95% of the cases should not have been decided against the consumer?
So you're saying the reviewer that averaged 7 minutes a case was being objective? Common sense dictates otherwise. The fact that the Minneapolis NAF unit agreed to give up that part of their business rather than let the AG investigate them should tell you enough.