I think that arbitration is a practice much abused by credit card banks. I hope that there will enough of an uproar that congress will ban the practice of a pre-dispute consent to arbitration. It is my belief that the Federal Arbitration Act did not envision a pre-dispute consent to binding arbitration.
Banks use arbitration to lower their cost and to avoid jury trials. There is no discovery in arbitration in the sense that there is in the legal system.
However, caliber is wrong on one thing. Those little stuffers in your statement where the bank inserts the arbitration language (or in the case more and more today it is in the fine print of the original credit card application) are binding on a consumer who fails to object AT THAT TIME and continues to use the card.
Thus far, courts have found these arbitration clauses to be binding on the consumer.
The arbitration organizations are kangaroo courts. Once the arbitration is complete, the creditor has an arbitration award. The creditor must now file in state court to convert that award to a judgment. Some consumers have been successful at this level in convincing a judge to not grant a judgment on the basis that you never consented to arbitration, etc. etc.
Caliber is right that you should object to the arbitration. Just don't expect to win at that level.
For more info, go to this website and search on arbitration --
www.artofcredit.com.