That said, a recalcitrant defendant can delay the start of meaningful proceedings a really long time. For example they can appeal the motion to compel and this would stay the civil court proceedings in the meantime (see Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski).
The reason to do this is if the defendant is most likely in the wrong and just wants to delay paying as much as possible (or wear down the plaintiff). In true civil court the attorneys could have sanctions against them if they pointlessly delay the proceedings. Less so in arbitration.
Some better sources :
Katherine V.W. Stone & Alexander J.S. Colvin. (2015). The arbitration epidemic: Mandatory arbitration deprives workers and consumers of their rights (Briefing Paper 414). Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/
Sternlight, J. R. (2005). Creeping Mandatory Arbitration: Is It Just? Scholarly Works, 57(280), 1631–1676.
- arbitration tends to award lower judgements than the courts
- it's harder to find a lawyer as a result (contingency is riskier)
- arbitors are not required to follow the law. There is almost no meaningful appeal even for substantive mistakes.
- arbitration is more informal and thus less procedural protection
- arbitration combined with class action waivers mean that each individually aggrieved person must sign up.
There are many other problems and sources but that's a decent start.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/cyrusfarivar/2023/02/10/ex-empl...