said by MyDogHsFleas:
What would the percentage have to be for you to consider the arbitration not to be "stacked against the consumer"?
How do you justify that number?
How do you know that 95% of the cases should not have been decided against the consumer?
It is irrelevant. I don't care how many cases should
have been decided in favor of the customers, or the businesses. The facts are 95% of cases were decided against the customer. It is preposterous to maintain that farcical outcome is statistically probable if the process were equitable. Ergo, some factor is corrupting the process. If the outcome percentage were reversed, how many unilateral forced binding arbitration clauses do you think you would see in service agreements? I'm guessing ZERO!
Sometimes things are as OBVIOUS
as they seem.