The actual problem is vendor lock-in and the conflict of interest in those who choose the vendor.
There should be a law that allows you to pick whichever arbitrator you want (within limits, like picking court jurisdiction), rather than being forced into a single vendor.
Many journal require that authors submit along with an "ORCID" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORCID .
The ORCID terms of use have mandatory arbitration - https://orcid.org/content/orcid-terms-use , and they choose the arbiter.
Thus, there's no way to publish in many journals without this agreement.
Oh, and the ORCID says registration can be done in "three easy steps" which takes only "30 seconds".
Yes, they basically say they don't expect people to read the terms of service as part of the registration!
If a contract can be negotiated on an individual basis between the contracting parties, fine, permit mandatory arbitration. However, mandatory arbitration should not be permitted otherwise because to do otherwise puts the lesser party at a distinct disadvantage, especially when all market participants include these clauses. For example, is it a "choice" about mandatory arbitration when both of the Internet providers serving my address have contracts of adhesion that include no-opt-out-clause mandatory arbitration? It is not.
At the bare minimum, the law should state that contracts of adhesion must include a 60-day opt-out clause for mandatory arbitration, with notice of opting out being provided via some reasonable means (e.g. not via Telex to a disused closet in Boca Raton). If arbitration is so great, let it stand on its own legs without being imposed by one side of the contract.