The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act was not to make things better for end customers like you and I.
The law was passed because judges at the time (in 1926, for what it's worth) were reluctant to enforce decisions reached through arbitration in courts because judges saw arbitration as either a reduction of judicial authority or less fair and open than a judicial proceeding. Both views were held at the time, take your pick for which one you prefer.
Arbitration was originally supposed to be about two parties of roughly equal negotiation and information-acquisition power being able to work out arguments between themselves. Inherently, this meant business-to-business complaints with each other.
You and I are not on equal footing and with the overwhelming majority of entities with which we contract, nor can we easily negotiate the terms of those contracts, both of which were features of the entities who originally wanted to use binding arbitration. But over the years, businesses that provide services to individual customers figured out that getting sued was expensive and decades of "ambulance-chasing class action lawyers are unfair!" turned the tide against using courts as neutral forums. Supreme Court decisions relating to the arbitration act over the past thirty years or so have effectively slammed the door on using courts and some members of Congress don't seem motivated to change this.
(Note that I am biased against binding arbitration agreements. I think them unconscionable, and I laugh endlessly when "well-intentioned" companies that do a Show HN here have them in their terms.)
The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act was not to make things better for end customers like you and I.
The law was passed because judges at the time (in 1926, for what it's worth) were reluctant to enforce decisions reached through arbitration in courts because judges saw arbitration as either a reduction of judicial authority or less fair and open than a judicial proceeding. Both views were held at the time, take your pick for which one you prefer.
Arbitration was originally supposed to be about two parties of roughly equal negotiation and information-acquisition power being able to work out arguments between themselves. Inherently, this meant business-to-business complaints with each other.
You and I are not on equal footing and with the overwhelming majority of entities with which we contract, nor can we easily negotiate the terms of those contracts, both of which were features of the entities who originally wanted to use binding arbitration. But over the years, businesses that provide services to individual customers figured out that getting sued was expensive and decades of "ambulance-chasing class action lawyers are unfair!" turned the tide against using courts as neutral forums. Supreme Court decisions relating to the arbitration act over the past thirty years or so have effectively slammed the door on using courts and some members of Congress don't seem motivated to change this.
(Note that I am biased against binding arbitration agreements. I think them unconscionable, and I laugh endlessly when "well-intentioned" companies that do a Show HN here have them in their terms.)