Binding Arbitration is a solution to this- companies don't sue each other so much these days because they just get it resolved by hiring a mutually agreed arbitrator from one of the Binding Arbitration organizations.
The number of cases handled by this method now, today, in the USA is far larger than the number handled by courts.
The government run the courts in a very inefficient way that makes the costs of lawsuits very high, and take forever and less reliable than arbitration.
Worse, courts interpret the laws often in a way that favors the government. EG: Courts are not actually neutral in the way that arbiters are. (Remember many judges are hired via election, many more are appointed by elected politicians and these politicians re-electability depends on who they appoint... at the federal level the judgeships are highly political.)
A lot of big problems, like copyright and patent disputes, could be resolved more quickly via an arbitration method (where the possibility of getting an arbiter who actually understands the technology issues at hand is a possibility.)
Mandating Binding Arbitration as condition of service or sale can be problematic. A contract of adhesion may effectively be used to deny people their rights in law; throwing in a biased arbitration process just adds insult to injury.
And the arbitration process will inherently be biased. Which party picks the arbitrator? Pays them and has a long-term relationship with them? Not the customer.
There are a few ways to decide who picks the arbitrator. Depending on how the agreement was written, one party may get to pick, or both parties may need to come to a mutual agreement. I recently saw one where each party picks an arbitrator, and those 2 arbitrators then decide on a 3rd party to be the final arbitrator.
So yes, the customer may have a long-term relationship with the arbitrator and may even pay them. It depends entirely on the situation. (For example, I know an arbitrator that I have used in the past and would be willing to use again.)
A lot of big problems, like copyright and patent disputes, could be resolved more quickly via an arbitration method (where the possibility of getting an arbiter who actually understands the technology issues at hand is a possibility.)
I seem to remember that some 250 years ago there was a revolution where part of the discontent was about proper access to the justice system. The insurgent party won and they wrote such things as right to jury trial into the constitution.
I talked to a lawyer a while back and he told me that arbitration is slowly falling out of favor because often one of the parties will simply dispute that the arbitration was fair and it winds up back in court anyway.
First, this shouldn't get to a court any longer than it takes to be tossed out.
Second, arbitration among entities with vast differences in power is not fair because the more powerful entity will tend to have greater control over who they pick, thus corrupting the process.
This is not really different to a civil lawsuit. If one side has deep pockets or significant in-house legal resources, they can delay the process with all kinds of legal motions and maneuvers until the other side runs out of money.
Another problem that needs to be fixed. The difference is that one has grown a cancer that needs to be removed while the other was cancerous from the start.
The number of cases handled by this method now, today, in the USA is far larger than the number handled by courts.
The government run the courts in a very inefficient way that makes the costs of lawsuits very high, and take forever and less reliable than arbitration.
Worse, courts interpret the laws often in a way that favors the government. EG: Courts are not actually neutral in the way that arbiters are. (Remember many judges are hired via election, many more are appointed by elected politicians and these politicians re-electability depends on who they appoint... at the federal level the judgeships are highly political.)
A lot of big problems, like copyright and patent disputes, could be resolved more quickly via an arbitration method (where the possibility of getting an arbiter who actually understands the technology issues at hand is a possibility.)