The comparison to judges would be a fair comparison if both parties paid 50% of the judge's salary, and both parties had to agree on which judge to use. Arbitrators are simply not chosen and paid for by the corporations. The way it is typically done is that one arbitrator is agreed upon by both parties (negating any implications of foul play), or each party chooses one and those two arbitrators choose a third.
I think it was mentioned elsewhere that contracts that are both (A) between parties of vastly disparate power, e.g. Microsoft's EULA and the average Xbox gamer; and (B) "take it or leave it" style contracts have been ruled on at least one occasion to be untenable.
Understanding this is not usually the case in the US, I'd rather have a legal system that seemed unfair unless you researched the details than one tried to seem fair from the outside at the risk of being unfair to specific groups.
I think it was mentioned elsewhere that contracts that are both (A) between parties of vastly disparate power, e.g. Microsoft's EULA and the average Xbox gamer; and (B) "take it or leave it" style contracts have been ruled on at least one occasion to be untenable.
Understanding this is not usually the case in the US, I'd rather have a legal system that seemed unfair unless you researched the details than one tried to seem fair from the outside at the risk of being unfair to specific groups.