We have a legal system precisely because it's inefficient. Rather than arbitration lets just not have any laws, functionally equivalent and cheaper. Having no

We have a legal system precisely because it's inefficient. Rather than arbitration lets just not have any laws, functionally equivalent and cheaper. Having no enforcement would be cheaper too. What makes arbitration preferable is whatever meaningful protection it provides. So what protections does it give consumers in this case, and why are those adequate? "It's more efficient" doesn't answer that. There are practical limits to the number of individual claims Sony can lose. Of course if it's within their rights Sony would very much want to steal ~$1,000 from everyone that uses their services. This all assumes that the arbitrator isn't getting kickbacks which they are more likely to than the traditional legal system.