perhaps due to the clickbaity title, it seems people are reading "agree to arbitration" as "agree that Well Fargo's internal decisions are final and waive their right to legal remedy."

let's firstly identify that yes, this is how people in the thread take "agree to arbitration."

Next let me ask: I did a quick Google search,

https://www.google.com/search?q=does+arbitration+always+favo...

expecting to see that, for example, perhaps arbitration always results in the larger player being awarded whatever they say. (Meaning that it is equal to saying "agree that its decisions are final and customers waive all recourse.")

But it seems the link isn't quite conclusive - it seems the results just show that the "Forced arbitration clauses almost always favor the company over the individual" - which is very strong language, but is about "favor" and not outright as categorical.

So I'm curious if people have experience with arbitration -- is it fair to read the arbitration clause as being de facto tantamount to Wells Fargo's decisions being final? (With the arbitration itself being an afterthought, a mere formality.)

Or is it just a bit lopsided, but still not quite as final and definitive as that?

I ask because in theory, in an environment of frivolous lawsuits that can cost companies literally hundreds of thousands or millions of legal fees, it might certainly make sense for arbitration clauses to limit the extent to which they are embroiled in huge lawsuits.

This reason for arbitration would be a bit different from the reason that "it's really just an excuse to say whatever we say is final."

If I were a corporation, I wouldn't think that an arbitration clause is the same as saying "our company's policies are final and we decide what they mean: you waive all right to any recourse".

Is that what other people here think it means?

(Genuine, open question - as you can see I did a Google search more or less with this phrasing.) Curious what you think, or your experiences. Or whether you've used arbitration clauses in the past, either on the corporate side against a frivolous lawsuit, or as a consumer against a large corporation. (I don't expect corporate lawyers from large corporations to read this comment and respond honestly - but small startup CEO's and individuals, sure. Of course, if you're doing evil work for a large corporation as a corporate lawyer enforcing lopsided contracts, I guess you're welcome to come clean under a throwaway...)