And tomorrow, I am going to start a company which will inundate you with illegal text messages because your declared stance makes violating those laws very profitable.
What most people refer to as "frivolous lawsuits" are absolutely necessary. If I am a business owner, and I find out that my product hurts or kills people, but that my legal liability for that is less than the cost of fixing the product, especially in America today, I am legally bound to continue hurting and killing customers. It's that simple. Cost-benefit. If it costs $2 million to stop hurting people, and $1 million to settle the lawsuits, the business continues hurting people as a cost of doing business.
The solution to this problem is called punitive damages. When a company does something which society actually wants to stop them from doing in the future, they HAVE TO levy a fine against the business large enough to make it cost-ineffective to continue their behavior. Public opposition to "frivolous lawsuits" and whiny opposition to people 'winning the lottery' with large punitive damage settlements hurt us all. Goldman Sachs, for example, has been caught breaking the law half a dozen times or so, ripping off the public to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. In response, the FTC has investigated them over and over, and every time the response is to fine them a piddly $5 or $10 million because public outcry over fining them $5 billion or whatever is actually necessary would be too great. So Goldman Sachs accepts that as a cost of doing business and continues raping the economy.
This is not theory. Automobile companies were caught doing this in the 70s. The cost of producing reliable cars was so much more than simply settling a few lawsuits each year at a million bucks a pop. How do you stop them? Ask nicely? No, if its profitable for them to do things which cause peoples deaths, then they could be sued for negligence if they knowingly changed their business practices and harmed the investments of their shareholders.
Sure, it might not matter for Goldman Sachs, but wouldn't a very consumer-centric company like Papa John's risk losing business in the long run if they have a crappy reputation? I'd be more concerned about public perception of my company. Or am I too naive?
"Simple arbitration" is a euphemism for when the arbitration company is in the defendant company's pocket, so that they almost always win, as is the case for today's arbitration clauses in contracts. The court system is the fairest big-case arbitration system we have today.