@span ProPublica Arbitration is usually done via a for-profit arbitration company (it may be claimed to be "non profit" but often that is simply because the revenue is made to vanish on the accounting ledgers because that money flows directly out as fees/salaries to the arbitrator people themselves.)

Anyway, the way that arbitration is done usually ends up creating a bias in the arbitration company for the party who tends to use arbitration services more often - because that's repeat business for the arbitration company.

This means that there is a quiet bias in arbitration to favor the injuring business rather than the harmed person, because that business is more likely to hire that arbitration company in the future.

@span ProPublica

As a Florida resident, I know all too well the games the insurance companies play and the enabling tactics our legislature and administration use.

The Republican majority residents of Florida themselves are largely to blame for continuing to elect state lawmakers and officials based on ideology, when they should instead be electing candidates who will actually look out for the people's interests.

Government of, by, and *for* the people, right?

@span ProPublica

Mandatory arbitration was never meant to be used by large corporations against individual consumers.

It was designed for use among comparably situated and resourced businesses, whose interest in resolving their disputes with speed and secrecy outweighed the public's interest in open precedent, and the due process concerning how they settled their internecine disputes.

The Supreme Court decided otherwise, and has done great harm to millions of American consumers.