Where's the violation?

Well, as you could have noticed, I live under the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.

And if you want an example of the law treating different "hats" differently, I suffered from a perfect example where the Government decreed that I had to pay myself compensation! So of course, once everybody had taken their cut I was left worse off. The situation was a mutual insurance company, where to compensate policyholders for *alleged* (and imaginary!!!) harm, the company had to pay compensation from shareholder funds. Except, as a mutual company, the shareholder funds were owned by the policyholders!

UK law (indeed, most law) is riddled with this where - and surely this is the only way you can do it - laws apply to a CLASS of people, not individuals. And it's extremely rare for the law to recognise that if someone belongs to multiple classes - wears different hats - that applying the law proves that the law is an ass.

As for your case, while I don't understand what on earth is going on, it looks to me like at least one of the arguments being made is that, because SOME customers agreed to arbitration, that actually means that ALL customers are subject to arbitration.

Again, in the UK, I would expect a lawyer stupid enough to put that to a Judge to end up in the clink for a few days for being an idiot.

Cheers,
Wol