Warnings upfront

Denialism blog has a post on Quack Miranda Warnings, specifically the phrase:

“These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”

The overall import of the article is that a product with this upfront warning should indicate to you that something is amiss, and someone is trying to cover their ass in the event that their miracle product does not perform as advertised.

What comes to me is the applicability of this to mandatory binding arbitration agreements and clauses, a pet dislike of mine.  When you look at them this way, it seems that a MBA clause is effectively saying “Here is your product.  If something goes wrong, you can’t use the legal system, a centuries old method of determining fault.  You must abide by the decision of someone we will select.”  That would seem a disincentive to any purchase/agreement, which would explain why such MBAs are usually found in the fine print.  I’ve heard the argument that offering MBAs are good for the consumer, that they lower prices and increase wages, and I’m not buying it.  If nothing else, for that to be true, they would be explicitly state as opposed to hidden clauses.