The provisions are almost uniformly more onerous on the consumer. They have inconvenient choice of law and forum, impose unreasonable costs (the parties share the costs of 3 arbitrators, anyone?), raise the risks by shifting fees, etc. Plus, the companies are inevitably repeat players, frequently selecting the same arbitrator(s) that then become reliant on those companies as a part of their income.

Every company I’ve ever worked for would never agree to the terms used in these arbitration provisions, so why would anyone think that they would be acceptable in a consumer context?

If companies were more careful about their mandatory arbitration rules, do you really think they would be so demonized?