@layman,
Obama and the Dems wanted this rule in place because it benefits the Plaintiffs' Bar. A lot of lefties love these guys because they see them as modern day
Robin Hoods, robbing from the Rich to give to the Poor.
Arbitration clauses are not used to cheat anyone, they are used to control ridiculously high legal costs that often force defendants to settle even if there is no proof of their liability.
I've been involved with hundreds of cases that have gone to arbitration. Typically each side's representatives (attorney) are required to agree upon a single Umpire or a panel of three umpires which is made up of two individuals picked by the attorneys and a third that they must agree upon.
In each case, there is an impartial 3rd Party who gets to make the final call.
In my experience, if the defending party is demonstrably liable, they lose almost 100% of the time. If they are not, it's still very often a
"Split the Baby" decision, particularly if the complaining party is sympathetic. Most defending parties prefer even these unfair results because they 1) Avoid having to pay absurd amounts of money defending a case in litigation and 2) They're not subject to whims of runaway juries made up of folks like blatham.