If eg Uber runs you over or bumps your car, you have no contractual relationship with them, and thus they can't force arbitration on you.
That's why they have to write the arbitrary clause into their ToS that they need you to agree on. No forced arbitration.
Of course, if you don't agree with the ToS, Uber is also not forced to transport you. But that's fair enough.
Letting entities that hold the vast majority of the leverage and financial/legal/political power in a contract opt out of the legal system and pick an alternative with a financial incentive to side with them is perhaps "fair" to you, but a lot of people would disagree on the "enough" part.
If the contract party A proposes gives too much advantage to party A for party B's liking, party B can make up their mind before they enter the contract.
Btw, if Uber is so powerful as you say, why do they bother with the tinkering around the margin and only force arbitration? Surely the bigger deal would be to jack up prices to thousand dollar per ride?
It’s one thing to say the legal system is expensive and slow, let’s resolve our issues by a third party, and another thing to where there’s no further action you can take and the arbitration authority is being paid by the company.
Its simply becoming a parallel legal system for a different class.
Could you please tell me more? I am not aware of that case.
I assume the affected people can't just cancel their subscription?
IMO, no it is not. It should not be legal to force arbitration via ToS.
How's that being forced? (Though I would assume that in most jurisdictions you actually have to book a car and ride in it, to be bound by the more wide-ranging clauses in the ToS.)
If you don't like the contract, don't enter it.
Sounds like a great opportunity to start a new company that offers slightly less bad contracts and take all their customers.