The New York Times has an editorial arguing that banks should be prohibited from forcing customers to handle disputes in arbitration rather than in court:
In recent decades, banks and other corporations have increasingly required customers to agree in advance to individually arbitrate any conflicts that arise over products and services, rather than sue in court. Arbitration, however, has turned out to stack the deck; corporations choose the arbitrators and set the rules of evidence. As a result, individuals usually abandon the effort rather than pursue their grievances.
The failure of arbitration to redress wrongdoing is especially stark in financial disputes. A series of articles by The Times in 2015 found that from 2010 to 2014, only 505 consumers — out of tens of millions whose financial contracts have mandatory-arbitration clauses — went to arbitration over disputes of $2,500 or less. The lack of recourse is an invitation for banks to chisel small amounts from potentially millions of customers.
It's hypocritical of the Times to take this position, because the money-making "Times Journeys" tours led by the newspaper's journalists to places like Iran and Cuba, and heavily advertised throughout the newspaper, require participants to agree to terms and conditions that include this arbitration clause:
Arbitration and Waiver of Trial by Jury: You agree to present any claims against us within ninety (90) days after the Tour ends and to file any suit within one (1) year of the incident, and you acknowledge that this expressly limits the applicable statute of limitations to one (1) year. In lieu of litigation and jury trials, each of which is expressly waived, any dispute concerning, relating or referring to this Participation Agreement, the brochure, or any other literature concerning your trip or the Tour shall be resolved exclusively by binding arbitration in New York City, New York, according to the then existing commercial rules of the American Arbitration Association. Such proceeding will be governed by the substantive law of the State of New York. The arbitrator(s) and not any federal, state, or local court or agency shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, conscionability, or formation of this Participant Agreement, including but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this Participant Agreement is void or voidable.
If the Times genuinely believes these arbitration clauses are so unjust that they merit a Sunday editorial denouncing them, maybe the newspaper could start improving things by altering its own contracts so as to not impose the clauses on its own customers. Or is there one standard for banks, and another standard for the Times itself? It's almost like what the Times really dislikes isn't arbitration clauses, but the financial services industry.