Policing big companies when they put binding arbitration clauses in their terms of service is problematic.
The video shares a story. A Harvard lady started being an arbiter. She ruled in favor of business a few times. Then she ruled in favor of the consumer, once, against a credit card company. Then the arbitration provider stopped sending her more cases, and also lied to some people that she had a scheduling conflict to remove her from some cases.
The video claims that in some years more people are struck by lightning than win arbitration cases against companies.
It says one of the main points of arbitration is to keep discovered documents secret. (I think it also limits the amount of discovery.)
Another goal is to avoid establishing legal precedents and avoid class action lawsuits. They want to make each consumer have to prove their case independently without reusing effort and outcomes.
If arbitration were really a fair way to handle cases more efficiently, consumers and companies would often voluntarily agree to it for handling smaller disputes, with no need to bind people to it in the terms of service.