The actual answer is that arbitrators are liable for their judgements.

If you had your hand cut off by your manager for being 5 minutes late to work and sued your company only to find out it had to be dealt with by binding arbitration, and in the course of discovery you found an email from the CEO and the board telling managers to start cutting off people's hands if they are 5 minutes late to work, and then the binding arbitrator said that the company did no wrong, then they have exposed themselves to a potential lawsuit without the protection of a binding arbitration agreement.

So, just like a fiduciary financial manager, they have a responsibility to act and judge in a way that will stand up to possible external scrutiny.

Thank you. That does make sense. But do lawsuits against arbitrators happen with any non-trivial frequency? From the little I know, lawsuits against arbitrators are not a serious threat that arbitrators face.

But even so, all an arbitrator need to do is rule in favor of the corporation whether there is a thread of an argument in their favor, then ruling against the corporation in the remaining tiny fraction of cases.

> why do arbitrators ever rule against the companies that pay their fees?

Both sides choose the arbitrator. If an individual arbitrator consistently rules against one category of claimants or defendants, lawyers will steer clients against them and they won’t get paid.

The arbitration service is paid by the company, usually, which is a win for the consumer. But the arbitrator is individually paid only if they’re selected. (They’re also usually retired judges, et cetera.)

Thank you. That does make sense. But as pointed out by the article, typical consumers/workers have no idea about how to choose an arbitrator and do not hire a lawyer.