Typically arbitration clauses have wording that also prohibit class-action cases. It looks like this hasn't been tested, but I guess that would be void too?
Once the company breaches the arbitration clause by refusing to pay for arbitration, it would open the door to class-actions.
However, you would probably need to file your case separately in court and get it combined with other cases to form a new class action, or join or an existing class action, as the breach would only apply on a case-by-case basis.
I don't see how there could be any viable argument toward that equivalence. Class action lawsuits are special in that most of the plaintiffs don't have to lift a finger while a small number of plaintiffs and their lawyers prosecute the case on behalf of everyone who doesn't opt out. Mass arbitration still requires each plaintiff to individually prove their case. Companies cannot write contracts that say you can only sue us if you're one of the lucky few; each and every customer/employee must individually have some avenue of recourse or the contract is going to be ruled unconscionable because the contract is only effectively binding on one party.
When a company says "you can't come after us because we're already facing too many other similar claims", that's called bankruptcy proceedings.
I always wondered about the possibility of a legal automation company that would opt people out of a given class action, wait for the class action outcome, and then file individual claims for everyone who opted out. Much better than receiving a gift card for $2.83 or whatever.
I suppose the court fees would be prohibitive, unless you had a strong case and could make the defendant pay them. The math could work out for the right cases though. Back in the day, I remember a class action lawsuit over Philips CD burners that just resulted in something like a $200 coupon off a new Philips CD burner. Basically a useless piece of paper unless you wanted to give the company another $300, but if that could have been made into cash...
