Mandatory arbitration reduces the cost of resolving disputes (i.e. lawyer&#x27;s fees).  There are many arbitrators available who are comparable to the courts in outcome, but much speedier, more predictable, and cheaper.  In cases where the parties are interested in good low cost dispute resolution, they may be willing to choose one of these arbitrators to reduce uncertainty and transaction costs.  In other cases, one party may pay the other extra to &#x27;buy&#x27; biased arbitration, or a specific arbitrator (or set of rules) may be selected as a way of shifting risk from one party to another, much like buying insurance; I do not see why this should be disallowed.<p>There is also a signalling aspect to this, which we usually do not account for.  By allowing the other party to select the arbitrator, you may be showing that you trust them; refusing their pick may be a sign of deeper issues.