The "defense" would argue that the arbitrator was mutually selected when the contract was signed, because the "plantiff" agreed to the contract terms.
The fact that the contract was non-negotiable should have made it a "contract of adhesion" where the plaintiff is recognized to have little choice in the details and the courts should provide scrutiny to ensure that they were equitable. But the supreme court has decided that "contracts of adhesion" don't really exist because you always had the choice to not have a cell phone or internet service or a job.
The fact that the contract was non-negotiable should have made it a "contract of adhesion" where the plaintiff is recognized to have little choice in the details and the courts should provide scrutiny to ensure that they were equitable. But the supreme court has decided that "contracts of adhesion" don't really exist because you always had the choice to not have a cell phone or internet service or a job.