said by MyDogHsFleas:
I think it's more that the cost of going through arbitration is much, much less than the cost of going to court.
That's a given... however if you can control the process to force consumers with grievances to play the game your way it pays off. Consumers can win big when a company gets hit with punitive damages to punish them for wrongdoing. That isn't going to happen in binding arbitration.
I also think you're naive about Justice with a capital J. Do you really think a court is a place where you get justice?
No, I'm not. I know that Courts and "Justice" often have little to do with each other... but I'm POSITIVE that your chances of "Justice" being done in binding arbitration are infinitesimally smaller. If you have to play the game, why play under their rigged rules.
By the way, the 95% figure cited in the original news item has nothing to do with AT&T. No one knows what the win/loss stats are on AT&T arbitrations.
Right. It's just in general. However AT&T is Gung-Ho for arbitration, so It's safe to assume their wining percentages are right in line.--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini