> I did pursue legal action against a contractor that defrauded me and I think the logic is basically the same
For two infinitely-wealthy and virtually-sovereign parties, yes. The big difference is in litigation you can bleed your opponent dry, e.g. by piling on jurisdictions and deploying delay tactics. Thus, in addition to predicting outcomes, you're also judging the point at which the other party (a) runs out of money or (b) gets fired.
In arbitration, this doesn't work. It's a vastly more even playing field for consumers, who tend to have less money than the companies they're suing and less downside in the case outcome (money damages versus e.g. having been sexually harassed).
> emails between their lawyer and mine were about details of the dispute, not about the financial calculation I outline above, but that was just window dressing; the real decisions were made based on how much it would cost to litigate vs how much they would pay to settle
Your lawyer wasn't communicating window dressing. Case details resolve to litigation outcomes.
> In arbitration, this doesn't work. It's a vastly more even playing field for consumers, who tend to have less money than the companies they're suing and less downside in the case outcome (money damages versus e.g. having been sexually harassed).
I dunno, not my personal experience. I took a large bank to arbitration over a low value credit reporting dispute. Offered to "settle" several times for nothing more than a fix to my credit report, which would have cost the bank $0.
The bank refused and so we went all the way to a final judgement.
The arbitration dragged out over 16 months. 4 days of hearings in which multiple attorneys and witnesses were present on the bank's side. Numerous conference calls, 800 emails, 250 pages of legal briefs, 1000+ pages of exhibits, discovery, etc. I would not be surprised if the total outlay eclipsed half a million for them.
For two infinitely-wealthy and virtually-sovereign parties, yes. The big difference is in litigation you can bleed your opponent dry, e.g. by piling on jurisdictions and deploying delay tactics. Thus, in addition to predicting outcomes, you're also judging the point at which the other party (a) runs out of money or (b) gets fired.
In arbitration, this doesn't work. It's a vastly more even playing field for consumers, who tend to have less money than the companies they're suing and less downside in the case outcome (money damages versus e.g. having been sexually harassed).
> emails between their lawyer and mine were about details of the dispute, not about the financial calculation I outline above, but that was just window dressing; the real decisions were made based on how much it would cost to litigate vs how much they would pay to settle
Your lawyer wasn't communicating window dressing. Case details resolve to litigation outcomes.