IRL this is called binding arbitration, and it's often opt-out for your ISP and cellphone provider.
Most companies prefer this, as it's faster and more efficient than the judicial system.
Most companies prefer this, as it's faster and more efficient than the judicial system.
First, waiver of class-action rights. This is a big deal because there's a cottage industry of enterprising lawyers who do find a couple main plaintiffs, generate a suit on behalf of a large class against a deep-pocketed defendant, and settle for something around a dollar per class member plus millions in legal fees.
Second is a limitation on discovery and subpoena rights for plaintiffs. In a traditional court setting, you may be allowed to force a company to turn over extensive communication records and other documents, corporate executives to testify or be deposed, and even burden non-party witnesses (eg, part suppliers).
In many jurisdictions, companies that wish to use binding arbitration have to pay the entirety of the significant fees to fund the arbitration system (and in a timely manner). It's still worthwhile for them to do so, even if they aren't tipping the scales of justice one micrometer. With the exact same outcome as a court case, the arbitration fees are fully worth it to avoid discovery, better protect executives from being forced to testify, dodge class-action fishing expeditions, etc.
The arbiter would risk losing all their customers.
Only in theory, or maybe if you take averages. As soon as you give people rights (to see the evidence against them, to confront witnesses, etc.) you have to create processes to manage those rights, and it ends up resembling the judicial system.
I had a friend go through a wrongful termination arbitration, and it took two years. Lawyers were present on both sides; the larger party could (and did) stretch out the process so as to bankrupt the smaller one; settlement negotiations were interminable. It's not clear to me that a court case would have been appreciably longer.
NOT! You have to get a lawyer, and it drags on and on.
This guy was actually part of a consortium of similar lawyers all over the world.
These disputes are completely normal. The amounts of money involved in these contracts is huge; and it's impossible to write into a contract every detail of what might go wrong. So when something goes wrong that isn't written into the letter of the contract, arbitrators pick up the slack. Contract arbitration is generally a paper exercise. The parties don't normally face-off in a courtroom.
There are even internationally-agreed standards of jurisprudence concerned with this kind of arbitration. The specific rules to be used willl be written into the contract.
https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/contractualtext...