The article only mentions it once, but this is "binding arbitration." "Binding" as in both parties are bound by the decision and neither has any further recourse.

but it says here: (I googled the phrase without quotes "can you sue after binding arbitration")

http://www.arbitration.com/articles/canapartystillsueafterbi...

>A decision on a binding arbitration cannot be appealed or overturned unless there are rare circumstances present (fraud, bias or other inappropriate actions on the part of the arbitration attorney). After the decision is rendered, the case is over.

The things that are the main worry here - bias - would be explicit grounds for throwing out binding arbitration. So I still don't follow how "binding arbitration" means "whatever the company wants, and you're SOL on your side."

It would be a clear case of bias if that were the case, and based on what I've just read would allow you recourse to a normal lawsuit...?

On the other hand, why are the decisions of unbiased arbitration worrysome? I don't understand what the problem people have with it is, and so far it hasn't been expressed clearly to me. Maybe you can help, jpallas?

Just trying to understand here. THanks