This strategy does result in increased upfront costs for companies. But this sort pile-on strategy seems like it could be countered with arbitration agreements that aren't subject to any sort of timeline, or arbitration agreements that preclude use of automated complaint filing systems.
Fundamentally, this strategy of inundating the company with claims only works because it's more expensive for the company to respond to an arbitration dispute than it is for an employee or customer to file one. If that asymmetry goes away, this strategy no longer works. I could see a company witness a spike in complaints, especially if the complaints are filed from an automated system, and conclude that these complaints would likely not result in lawsuits if arbitration was rejected. Now the onus is back on the complainant to actually go forth with the lawsuit.
I think it remains to be seen if the courts will allow arbitration agreements that are completely one-sided. I mean, a big part of the original Supreme Court rulings was that the arbitration proceedings would be impartial. Having an arbitration agreement with no timeline seems like it would be more likely to be overturned.
>I think it remains to be seen if the courts will allow arbitration agreements that are completely one-sided.
One-sided bad faith terms of service have been enforced to great effect in recent years, so I can't see a one sided arbitration agreement getting any scorn or backlash from the current judicial makeup.
It doesn't matter if 90% of plaintiffs choose not to go to trial. The 10% that do are more than enough to overwhelm the company's ability to individually manage each case.
Also, in the US legal system, it costs very little to file a lawsuit. And for plaintiffs, it generally costs nothing at the early stages because most plaintiff lawyers work on contingency.
It will still be far less expensive for the filer per-complaint, than for the company total. I’m also not sure that you can prove an automated complaint is distinctly different than a manual one.
Fundamentally, this strategy of inundating the company with claims only works because it's more expensive for the company to respond to an arbitration dispute than it is for an employee or customer to file one. If that asymmetry goes away, this strategy no longer works. I could see a company witness a spike in complaints, especially if the complaints are filed from an automated system, and conclude that these complaints would likely not result in lawsuits if arbitration was rejected. Now the onus is back on the complainant to actually go forth with the lawsuit.