I was reading about forced arbitration clauses, or class action wavers, which are a type of contract of adhesion which can come with some products and services. Historically, these were deemed unenforceable;
for good reason, I think, because if eventually every service or product came with a contract which prevented consumers from filing a lawsuit or class action if, say, for instance, the product or service caused injury or death, like a car with braking system flaws, or a child's toy that causes cancer, etc, then we'd live in a world where corporations could shove whatever they wanted down our throats, cause injuries and death, and we could do nothing about it, because we "agreed to a contract" by using their product or service in the first place (and in this scenario there would be no alternatives, so you either risk using products that could kill you, or you go live in a cave or something).
So while I was reading about arbitration clauses, I learned about "ATT Mobility vs Concepcion", which is the case which changed the precedent, and allowed these kinds of clauses to be enforced.
What I want to know is, does this mean that arbitration clauses will always be enforced now? or does it simply mean that in certain cases they can be enforced?
Does a supreme court case set the precedent for how all similar cases from that point forward will be decided? because I've always heard supreme court cases referred to in such situations; as if they mean that such cases have already been settled due to one supreme court case involving a similar subject.