The arbitration vendors (and lets be clear...they are vendors not a system of justice) could and probably should write this into their rules.
They rely on the appearance of fairness to enable corporations to use their services against consumers/employees. If they aren't careful there is a risk of the courts increasingly observing how tipped the scales of arbitration are.
The jurisprudence, to the limited extent I understand it, relies on the assertion that arbitration is fair. Upholding that believe is in the arbitrators interest.
>(and lets be clear...they are vendors not a system of justice)
This is misleading, neither America nor any other country has a justice system. Justice is often a goal of the legal system but it is not a direct attribute of the system.
Most of Europe, at least, isn't bound to the letter of the law, but rather the spirit of it. I'd assume this makes them much more a justice system than the American version.
To be fair, the "justice system" is a commonly accepted name for the legal system, in the same way that you would call it the "Department of Defense" or the "Department for Health and Social Care."
They rely on the appearance of fairness to enable corporations to use their services against consumers/employees. If they aren't careful there is a risk of the courts increasingly observing how tipped the scales of arbitration are.
The jurisprudence, to the limited extent I understand it, relies on the assertion that arbitration is fair. Upholding that believe is in the arbitrators interest.