So Uber ToS requires you to accept arbitration, then, when they are found responsible for damages, they still don’t want to pay. Seems pretty shitty for the consumer.

I don't think there's anything to suggest Uber refused to pay the arbitration award? They just stated that they disagreed with the outcome.

(Which is not to say there's not plenty to dislike about this whole case, including the fact it's forced arbitration...)

In that case why is there a "settlement agreement" mentioned that has a $10M penalty for disparagement? Not sure what that refers to exactly but how can Uber (try to) dictate terms in the settlement?

It does seem they're trying to get out of it somehow.

It sounds like they didn't agree to that but anyone can propose a settlement.

Forced arbitration is creating a parallel legal system where certain companies are excluded from the consequences of their own actions. One might even say they’re becoming a protected class even.

I have been on both sides of arbitration, winning and losing. It’s much better. Basically legislation done right (for civil matters).

The only people who really win from traditional legislation are lawyers (and plaintiffs counsel who use the long expensive process to blackmail people - which is 90% of civil cases)

Arbitration can be more efficient, but both parties should have an option to choose it, a direct settlement or public court. The average consumer is denied the choice by using these everyday services that have non-negotiable contracts.

Good outcome, but forced arbitration should still be illegal.

If you have been through both processes, you would more likely say the traditional civil process should be illegal.