> > a) If it's worth the cost of hiring a lawyer and paying court fees
>
> It's not.
It's highly conditional. When parties absolutely cannot come to an agreement in disputes about matters of contract or law, that's what the courts are for. Being strongarmed into giving up access to the courts absolutely should be illegal. (Mutual pre-agreement between peer parties to go to arbitration rather than court is totally A-OK.)
> Sounds like you agree that smaller situations should not escalate to a jury?
Small Claims court exists for a very good reason, as do bench trials.
However, things that appear small (e.g. billing disputes) can be very, very large due to a multitude of factors (e.g. number of people who are "mistakenly" being incorrectly billed). That's why the court issues subpoenas, lawyers and the court issue binding demands for evidence preservation, and the entire discovery process exists. On top of that, court proceedings are by default a matter of public record; in part so others can be made aware of the misbehaviors of others... and potentially join in on an action or file one of their own if they're also a wronged party.
When one's only redress is behind closed doors and one is legally bound by NDA to not speak about the arbitration proceedings, it's dirt-simple to hide the scope of malfeasance and frustrate organized action.
It's highly conditional. When parties absolutely cannot come to an agreement in disputes about matters of contract or law, that's what the courts are for. Being strongarmed into giving up access to the courts absolutely should be illegal. (Mutual pre-agreement between peer parties to go to arbitration rather than court is totally A-OK.)
> Sounds like you agree that smaller situations should not escalate to a jury?
Small Claims court exists for a very good reason, as do bench trials.
However, things that appear small (e.g. billing disputes) can be very, very large due to a multitude of factors (e.g. number of people who are "mistakenly" being incorrectly billed). That's why the court issues subpoenas, lawyers and the court issue binding demands for evidence preservation, and the entire discovery process exists. On top of that, court proceedings are by default a matter of public record; in part so others can be made aware of the misbehaviors of others... and potentially join in on an action or file one of their own if they're also a wronged party.
When one's only redress is behind closed doors and one is legally bound by NDA to not speak about the arbitration proceedings, it's dirt-simple to hide the scope of malfeasance and frustrate organized action.