Consider the Lime Scooters rental contract and related materials posted this week. Lime requires consumers wishing to rent scooters to agree to the rental agreement, which is massive and dense and contains, among other things, an arbitration clause eliminating access to the courts in case of harm coming from use of the scooters. Lime is aware that few consumers will read the agreement and fewer still will understand it, but Lime also knows that the arbitration clause is legal and that the legal system generally will hold the consumer to the contract if they agree to it without regard for whether they actually read or understood it - each party to a contract is responsible for reading and gaining understanding before signing, and the risk of not reading or understanding the scooter rental agreement falls on the consumer, not on Lime. Lime's view is that the consumer is not forced to accept the agreement and does have a choice - accept and rent the scooter, or decline and do without the scooter, possibly renting a scooter from a Lime competitor (all of which likely also use mandatory arbitration clauses, but that's not Lime's problem). Discuss this use of mandatory arbitration in the context of a non-negotiable consumer transaction - fair or not fair? Be sure to answer from both the consumer perspective and the business perspective, keeping in mind that what Lime is doing is legal. Why do the injured consumers prefer litigation through the courts, if in fact they do so prefer (they may not be informed enough to know what they prefer)? Why do their lawyers prefer litigation through the courts, and does or should what the lawyers prefer matter? Why does Lime prefer arbitration? Is there any basis for a fair compromise between these two seemingly irreconcilable positions