I recall somes states are [going to?] simply making any forced arbitration clauses unenforceable (much like no compete clauses in California)

can't. There's a federal law from 1928 (I kid you not) that says no state can impair the ability of parties to agree to arbitration. The fiction is that clicking on a terms-of-service button is "consent" to all the terms therein, including arbitration and class action waivers.

California for years said such things were unenforceable but the US Supreme Court in 2011 struck it down. (AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011))

I believe there is an argument to make that banning forced arbitration is not impairing the ability of parties to agree to arbitration. All that would do is ensure that the parties are actually agreeing to it, instead of one party bullying the other into arbitration.

> There's a federal law from 1928 (I kid you not) that says no state can impair the ability of parties to agree to arbitration.

Do you have a citation for to the statute or the USC for that?

This is something that I'd like to write my reps about.

I was wrong, it was passed in 1925. More here, including a link to the Concepcion decision by the USSC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act

That would be a very, very good thing.